Top Pieces of Evidence that the Iranian Presidential Election Was Stolen

1. It is claimed that Ahmadinejad won the city of Tabriz with 57%. His main opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, is an Azeri from Azerbaijan province, of which Tabriz is the capital. Mousavi, according to such polls as exist in Iran and widespread anecdotal evidence, did better in cities and is popular in Azerbaijan. Certainly, his rallies there were very well attended. So for an Azeri urban center to go so heavily for Ahmadinejad just makes no sense. In past elections, Azeris voted disproportionately for even minor presidential candidates who hailed from that province.

2. Ahmadinejad is claimed to have taken Tehran by over 50%. Again, he is not popular in the cities, even, as he claims, in the poor neighborhoods, in part because his policies have produced high inflation and high unemployment. That he should have won Tehran is so unlikely as to raise real questions about these numbers. [Ahmadinejad is widely thought only to have won Tehran in 2005 because the pro-reform groups were discouraged and stayed home rather than voting.)

3. It is claimed that cleric Mehdi Karoubi, the other reformist candidate, received 320,000 votes, and that he did poorly in Iran's western provinces, even losing in Luristan. He is a Lur and is popular in the west, including in Kurdistan. Karoubi received 17 percent of the vote in the first round of presidential elections in 2005. While it is possible that his support has substantially declined since then, it is hard to believe that he would get less than one percent of the vote. Moreover, he should have at least done well in the west, which he did not.

4. Mohsen Rezaie, who polled very badly and seems not to have been at all popular, is alleged to have received 670,000 votes, twice as much as Karoubi.

5. Ahmadinejad's numbers were fairly standard across Iran's provinces. In past elections there have been substantial ethnic and provincial variations.

6. The Electoral Commission is supposed to wait three days before certifying the results of the election, at which point they are to inform Khamenei of the results, and he signs off on the process. The three-day delay is intended to allow charges of irregularities to be adjudicated. In this case, Khamenei immediately approved the alleged results.

I am aware of the difficulties of catching history on the run. Some explanation may emerge for Ahmadinejad's upset that does not involve fraud. For instance, it is possible that he has gotten the credit for spreading around a lot of oil money in the form of favors to his constituencies, but somehow managed to escape the blame for the resultant high inflation.

But just as a first reaction, this post-election situation looks to me like a crime scene. And here is how I would reconstruct the crime.

As the real numbers started coming into the Interior Ministry late on Friday, it became clear that Mousavi was winning. Mousavi's spokesman abroad, filmmaker Mohsen Makhbalbaf, alleges that the ministry even contacted Mousavi's camp and said it would begin preparing the population for this victory.

The ministry must have informed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has had a feud with Mousavi for over 30 years, who found this outcome unsupportable. And, apparently, he and other top leaders had been so confident of an Ahmadinejad win that they had made no contingency plans for what to do if he looked as though he would lose.

They therefore sent blanket instructions to the Electoral Commission to falsify the vote counts.

This clumsy cover-up then produced the incredible result of an Ahmadinejad landlside in Tabriz and Isfahan and Tehran.

The reason for which Rezaie and Karoubi had to be assigned such implausibly low totals was to make sure Ahmadinejad got over 51% of the vote and thus avoid a run-off between him and Mousavi next Friday, which would have given the Mousavi camp a chance to attempt to rally the public and forestall further tampering with the election.

This scenario accounts for all known anomalies and is consistent with what we know of the major players.

More in my column, just out, in Salon.com: "Ahmadinejad reelected under cloud of fraud," where I argue that the outcome of the presidential elections does not and should not affect Obama's policies toward that country-- they are the right policies and should be followed through on regardless.

The public demonstrations against the result don't appear to be that big. In the past decade, reformers have always backed down in Iran when challenged by hardliners, in part because no one wants to relive the horrible Great Terror of the 1980s after the revolution, when faction-fighting produced blood in the streets. Mousavi is still from that generation.

My own guess is that you have to get a leadership born after the revolution, who does not remember it and its sanguinary aftermath, before you get people willing to push back hard against the rightwingers.

So, there are protests against an allegedly stolen election. The Basij paramilitary thugs and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards will break some heads. Unless there has been a sea change in Iran, the theocrats may well get away with this soft coup for the moment. But the regime's legitimacy will take a critical hit, and its ultimate demise may have been hastened, over the next decade or two.

What I've said is full of speculation and informed guesses. I'd be glad to be proved wrong on several of these points. Maybe I will be.

PS: Here's the data:

So here is what Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli said Saturday about the outcome of the Iranian presidential elections:

At the Grand Hyatt hotel in midtown Manhattan on Friday, a decorous LCD placard outside a ballroom, the sort that might have announced the name of a session at a conference of anthropologists or oral surgeons, read, “The Islamic Republic of Iran: Elections, 7 A.M. to 9 P.M.” On the way to the hotel, I’d swapped headscarves with an Iranian friend. The one she’d brought was green, the official color of the campaign of the reformist presidential hopeful Mir Hossein Mousavi, and she had heard that in Tehran, it was forbidden to wear green inside the polling places. But at the Grand Hyatt, there were no headscarves to be seen, and plenty of green.

The ballroom was nearly empty when we arrived at 3:30 P.M., except for a table staffed by three Iranian-Americans, one of whom assured us that they were volunteers, not employees of the Iranian government. That would explain the lack of compulsory hijab. He said he’d seen about five-hundred voters so far, and he estimated that seventy-five per cent of them were young people. Our little group included a thirty-year-old man and three women in their twenties. “Iran has a bright future,” the volunteer told us in avuncular tones, “with so many young people getting involved.” My friends filled out their ballots. Three were voting for Mousavi, one for the other reformist in the race, Mehdi Karroubi.

We loitered outside the ballroom, where two Iranian journalists sat on the floor glued to their Blackberries, looking for Facebook updates from Iran. The ballroom was filling up. A leggy young woman entered in a green tank top and white hot pants, to a burst of appreciative laughter and a flurry of photographs. Iranian sweets called gaz appeared on the refreshments table. They were green, one voter pointed out, for Mousavi, and white, for Karroubi. Another, mocking President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s 2005 campaign promise to bring oil to the people’s supper tables, said, “This is the gaz Ahmadinejad has brought to our tables.”

From 3:30 P.M. until 4:15 P.M., the scene at the Hyatt was festive, despite the news earlier in the day that the reformist headquarters had been sacked and prominent reformists arrested. Everyone had a story about a relative who had never voted before, who was a royalist or an all-purpose skeptic, who was wearing green in the streets or simply casting a vote for Mousavi. There was only one way this could go. Turnout, we heard, was over eighty per cent.

But then the first ominous Facebook update came in. The Ministry of Interior had announced that of twenty-five million votes counted thus far, sixteen million were for Ahmadinejad. The time, in Tehran, was just past midnight. The polls in the cities had just closed. It was not time to panic yet; maybe this was just the rural vote. But the mood in our little circle darkened. It wasn’t true, came another update; only five million had been counted, and of them, both candidates were claiming sixty per cent. Then the tally reached ten million, with sixty-seven per cent for Ahmadinejad. And then the most sinister news of all: the public had been told that if anyone approached the Interior Ministry, which would be the obvious site for a protest of the vote count, the police had orders to shoot.

There can be no question that the June 12, 2009 Iranian presidential election was stolen. Dissident employees of the Interior Ministry, which is under the control of President Ahmadinejad and is responsible for the mechanics of the polling and counting of votes, have reportedly issued an open letter saying as much. Government polls (one conducted by the Revolutionary Guards, the other by the state broadcasting company) that were leaked to the campaigns allegedly showed ten- to twenty-point leads for Mousavi a week before the election; earlier polls had them neck and neck, with Mousavi leading by one per cent, and Karroubi just behind. Historically, low turnout has always favored conservatives in Iranian elections, while high turnout favors reformers. That’s because Iran’s most reliable voters are those who believe in the system; those who are critical tend to be reluctant to participate. For this reason, in the last three elections, sixty-five per cent of voters have come from traditional, rural villages, which house just thirty-five per cent of the populace. If the current figures are to be believed, urban Iranians who voted for the reformist ex-president Mohammad Khatami in 1997 and 2001 have defected to Ahmadinejad in droves.

What is most shocking is not the fraud itself, but that it was brazen and entirely without pretext. The final figures put Mousavi’s vote below thirty-five per cent, and not because of a split among reformists; they have Karroubi pulling less than one per cent of the vote. To announce a result this improbable, and to do it while locking down the Interior Ministry, sending squads of Revolutionary Guards into the streets, blacking out internet and cell phone communication and shuttering the headquarters of the rival candidates, sends a chilling message to the people of Iran—not only that the Islamic Republic does not care about their votes, but that it does not fear their wrath. Iranians, including many of the original founders and staunch supporters of the revolution, are angry, and they will demonstrate. But they will be met with organized and merciless violence.
Already, Youtube clips are streaming out of Iran, many of them showing riot police savagely beating protestors.

height="344"></embed></object>

Mousavi and Karroubi have been placed under house arrest.

When it comes to the instruments of democracy in Iran, there is understandable confusion abroad. Iran has elections, and in 1997 Mohammad Khatami won them by a landslide and initiated an eight-year period of internal reform. But this is only half the story of the reform years. The other half involves the relentless occlusion of the reform agenda by clerics who outrank the president, and the systematic elimination of every loophole through which another Khatami might creep into the state apparatus. By 2005 the country’s hard-line Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, had made it abundantly clear that he did not intend to tolerate a divided government. The mood of the electorate, in 2005 and at the two mid-term elections since, has been cynical and despondent. It was logical to conclude that no candidate who ran in the 2009 race could be expected to put up real resistance to the Leader, and that no reforms would be successful. And so it was particularly stunning to watch Iranians resurrect their hopes and place them in Mir Hossein Mousavi—even if they did so for the main purpose of ejecting Ahmadinejad from power.

When the Leader approved Mousavi and Karroubi as presidential candidates earlier this year, Karroubi lacked a constituency, and Mousavi was no liberal. Perhaps Khamenei did not count on Mousavi’s emergence as the vehicle for a groundswell of youthful democratic sentiment—meaning whatever his personal views or background, if Mousavi became president, he would carry with him the same social forces and the same expectations as Khatami, who was fatefully paralyzed between the demands of his supporters and the constraints of his superiors. Where Khatami was conciliatory by nature, Mousavi had a reputation for a steelier resolve. And there is the small matter of Obama, the outreach from the United States, and the unavoidable sense that most of the Iranian public and its political establishment, including all three presidential challengers, support dialogue with America. The major exceptions have been the Leader himself, his hard-line inner circle, and Ahmadinejad. Did Khamenei fear the presence of unreliable forces in government during such a sensitive moment in Iran’s foreign policy? Or did he want to shut down the possibility of dialogue altogether?

That the reformists, who urged participation in the system in order to change it, have been so thoroughly shown up this June is depressing on many levels. For all its failings, the reform movement has been the most constructive and effective channel for Iranian frustrations and desires under the Islamic Republic. While Iranian opposition activists have fiercely debated the efficacy of voting—whether it provided a fig leaf for dictatorship or a necessary choice among evils—hardly anyone in Iran’s opposition wants a bloody uprising. That road has been too well traveled in Iran, and so the contemporary debate has been among nonviolent tactics, some with longer timelines than others. But now the regime has forced the issue, leaving Iranians who oppose strong-arm tactics and hard-line policies with just two cards in their hands. One is passivity, and the other is revolt. The outcome depends in part on how high a price the regime is willing to extract from its people.

In the days before the vote, my Iranian contacts breathlessly compared the atmosphere in Iran to that of 1979, the year of the Islamic Revolution. In the last twenty-four hours, the unavoidable analogy has become 1989. The big question is where we are: Wenceslas Square or Tiananmen.

Mousavi And Other Reformers Arrested. Many People Hurt In Riots By Police
Posted by Dolores M Bernal on Jun 13th, 2009 and filed under Headlines, World News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry from your site

Numerous reports indicate that Mir Hossein Mousavi, the presidential candidate that run against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran, has been placed under house arrest.

NEWS JUNKIE began disseminating the news right after The Daily Kos posted a message from one of their informants on the ground early on Saturday. This was his message:

Mousavi has been place under house arrest. He was arrested on his way to Khamenei’s house. All communication has been shut off. Khamenei has issued a statement claiming that HE that he is leading this coup to SAVE the Islamic Government.

LA Times on Mousavi’s arrest and rioting:

Huge swaths of the capital erupted in fiery riots that stretched into the early morning Sunday as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared victory in his quest for a second four-year term amid allegations of widespread fraud and a strident challenge of the vote results by his main challenger, who was reportedly placed under house arrest.

The Tweet

A tweet was posted in Mousavi’s Twitter account saying that he had been placed under house arrest by the Ministry of Intelligence. This is the tweet.

Other Arrests

There are reports that many other leaders in Mousavi’s party have also been arrested: Mosharekat, Mojahedin Enqelab and Ahmad Zaidabadi. Critics within Iran are calling this a “purge” of all reformers. It’s unclear if Ahmadinejad is behind ordering these arrests.

Continuing Civil Unrest

Fires have been set in many parts of the city. The smell of smoke has reached as far Marzdaran. Police are confiscating cameras from people to stop them from sending images outside of Iran. People are using stones to battle the riot police. The Tehranbureau is reporting that as many as 100 people have been killed on the streets of Tehran due to clashes with the police. The AP is also reporting that there are injured Iranians, but didn’t post how many.

Here is what an Iranian citizen has been reporting from the Tehranbureau:

“Here the internet is horrible. After much trouble, I was able t log on through a proxy. I’ll try my best to get the news to you. I have news right now that in Shahrake Gharb [neighborhood in northeast Tehran] is absolute chaos. People are in the streets, they’re chanting. No sign of police. Their protest continues at this hour. I also hear that Niavaran [north Tehran] is a big chaotic too — at least until an hour ago. I’m sorry my information is fragmented. I’m afraid I’ll get disconnected. In Niavaran people are shouting from their homes. That way when police comes they quickly retreat; so they haven’t been able to arrest anyone. I’ve also heard that people captured a few of the Basij guys and gave him a beating. It feels like Martial Law here. Cell phones are down, internet lines are horrible, Facebook is filtered, and … I also have news from Ahvaz. They have also announced there that if someone comes out of their house they will be arrested. So keep your fingers crossed and pray for us.”

More from the LA Times:

Tehran erupted in unrest today as results for the Iranian presidential election pitting incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against leading reformist Mir-Hossein Mousavi and two other rivals were announced. Ahmadinejad won big amid record turnout and allegations of widespread voter fraud.

Enraged Mousavi supporters battled police for hours, and it remained unclear whether the unrest would stop anytime soon.

Spotty Communication

Communication with Iran has been spotty or totally disconnected in many parts of the country, including telephone, cell, and Internet — Facebook and YouTube accounts from people inside Iran have been blocked or filtered.

This story was last updated at 8:22 pm (U.S. Pacific Time).

wild1

06-14-2009, 12:19 AM

you'd have to go to a laundromat to see more mechanical spinning

jAZ

06-14-2009, 12:33 AM

you'd have to go to a laundromat to see more mechanical spinning

I find it awesome that the NeoCons are cheering for Amidinajad.

Taco John

06-14-2009, 12:44 AM

I find it awesome that the NeoCons are cheering for Amidinajad.

It just shows just how morally bankrupt the Republican party has become. Rooting for Ahmedenijad because of what his fall would mean for the success of the Obama presidency is pretty sick when you consider everything that's at stake.

trndobrd

06-14-2009, 01:30 AM

It just shows just how morally bankrupt the Republican party has become. Rooting for Ahmedenijad because of what his fall would mean for the success of the Obama presidency is pretty sick when you consider everything that's at stake.

Which Republican was rooting for Ahmedenijad?

Laughing at the Obamaphiles who believed that Dear Leader could give a speech in Egypt and change the outcome of an 'election' in Iran run under the auspices of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's Guardian Council, and the watchful eye of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, is not tantamount to 'rooting for Ahmedenijad'.

Those expressing dismay that the Iranian election might have been fixed should also be reminded that water is wet. This wasn't a fair or open election and was fixed before it began. All four candidates were hand selected and pre-approved by the Guardian Council. As long as Iran remains a police state run by the Guardian Council and Revolutionary Guard, it doesn't matter who the frontman is.

I truly hope the path to success for the Obama Presidency and Clinton State Dept was more than hope that Ahmedenijad would lose the election. Mousavi had indicated a willingness to talk about Iran's nuclear program, but also indicated that he had no interest in ending the program. Hopefully, the Obama administration will learn from this and realize that international relations is more than speeches to adoring crowds and get serious about dealing with nations like Iran and NK.

mikey23545

06-14-2009, 02:15 AM

Is there <i>any</i> election jIZ doesn't think has been rigged?

Ultra Peanut

06-14-2009, 03:02 AM

I literally could not give less of a shit about America's role in this. Somebody seriously fucked up, because this is sparking stuff that's truly stunning.

I literally could not give less of a shit about America's role in this. Somebody seriously ****ed up, because this is sparking stuff that's truly stunning.

You should care about America's role in this, because America is truly why this is happening. Look at those videos. Look at the clothes those people are wearing. A culture bomb is going off in their country with the megaton force of Hiroshima. This is what a free-trader's foriegn policy is all about. The more we open our borders and culture to people in free and honest trade, the more westernized they become. Plato's cave takes care of the rest.

This is the sort of revolution that we should have worked to inspire in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Otter

06-14-2009, 04:03 AM

Is it wrong that I laughed at the Calvin Klein underwear?

orange

06-14-2009, 06:00 AM

2:33 AM ET -- A plan to depose Supreme Leader Khamenei? Trita Parsi (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trita-parsi), one of the most insightful voices discussing the events in Iran on U.S. news networks, sends over his latest thoughts:
Clearly, the anti-Ahmadinejad camp has been taken by surprise and is scrambling for a plan. Increasingly, given their failure to get Khamenei to intervene, their only option seems to be to directly challenge -- or threaten to challenge -- the supreme leader.
Here's where the powerful chairman of the Assembly of Experts, Mousavi supporter Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, comes in. Only this assembly has the formal authority to call for Khamenei's dismissal, and it is now widely assumed that Rafsanjani is quietly assessing whether he has the votes to do so or not.
It may be that the first steps toward challenging Khamenei have already been taken. After all, Mousavi went over the supreme leader's head with an open letter to the clergy in Qom. Rafsanjani clearly failed to win Khamenei's support in a reported meeting between the two men Friday, but the influential Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour, who heads the vote-monitoring committee for Mousavi and fellow candidate Mehdi Karroubi, has officially requested that the Guardian Council cancel the election and schedule a new vote with proper monitoring.

3:28 AM ET -- "There will be blood." I posted below on Trita Parsi's belief that Iran's reformists are "widely assumed" to be planning to challenge Ayatollah Khamenei.
Now Steve Clemons (of the New America Foundation and a HuffPost blogger (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons)) writes about a discussion he had (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/06/iran_there_will/) in London with "a well-connected Iranian who knows many of the power figures in the Tehran political order."
[T]he scariest point he made to me that I had not heard anywhere else is that this "coup by the right wing" has created pressures that cannot be solved or patted down by the normal institutional arrangements Iran has constructed. The Guardian Council and other power nodes of government can't deal with the current crisis and can't deal with the fact that a civil war has now broken out among Iran's revolutionaries.
My contact predicted serious violence at the highest levels. He said that Ahmadinejad is now genuinely scared of Iranian society and of Mousavi and Rafsanjani. The level of tension between them has gone beyond civil limits -- and my contact said that Ahmadinejad will try to have them imprisoned and killed.
Likewise, he said, Rafsanjani, Khatami, and Mousavi know this -- and thus are using all of the instruments at their control within Iran's government apparatus to fight back -- but given Khamenei's embrace of Ahmadinejad's actions in the election and victory, there is no recourse but to try and remove Khamenei. Some suggest that Rafsanjani will count votes to see if there is a way to formally dislodge Khamenei -- but this source I met said that all of these political giants have resources at their disposal to "do away with" those that get in the way.

I find it utterly stunning to see anybody trying to pass this blatant fraud off as a fair election.

Mojo Jojo

06-14-2009, 06:14 AM

I find it utterly stunning to see anybody trying to pass this blatant fraud off as a fair election.

I find it utterly stunning that anyone thought this was going to be anything close to a fair election. This outcome should come as a surprise to no one.

Frankie

06-14-2009, 06:53 AM

you'd have to go to a laundromat to see more mechanical spinning

And you are an expert on this based on....?

Frankie

06-14-2009, 06:55 AM

It just shows just how morally bankrupt the Republican party has become. Rooting for Ahmedenijad because of what his fall would mean for the success of the Obama presidency is pretty sick when you consider everything that's at stake.

The Limbaugh directive. The sheep on the march.

Frankie

06-14-2009, 06:57 AM

Is it wrong that I laughed at the Calvin Klein underwear?

No. I did too. :)

Frankie

06-14-2009, 08:01 AM

Just talked to my cousin in Tehran. It was eerie when in the middle of our talk she cut me mid-sentence and told me that the unrest just entered their street!

She said they think the police force is mostly Palestinians hired for things like this. Also rumor has it that last night about 100 pro-Mousavi congress members have been arrested.

wild1

06-14-2009, 08:07 AM

I find it awesome that the NeoCons are cheering for Amidinajad.

Not a 'neocon' and not rooting for him.

I just find it awesome that the obama cultists thought he was going to influence this, and also thought ol' Mahmoud was actually not popular over there.

It's breaking down their paradigm that all the Messiah has to do is stretch out his hand over an election and it will go our way.

patteeu

06-14-2009, 08:20 AM

I find it awesome that the NeoCons are cheering for Amidinajad.

Who's cheering for him? It's a shame that the Iranian Al Gore has succeeded where the US Al Gore failed.

patteeu

06-14-2009, 08:22 AM

Which Republican was rooting for Ahmedenijad?

Laughing at the Obamaphiles who believed that Dear Leader could give a speech in Egypt and change the outcome of an 'election' in Iran run under the auspices of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's Guardian Council, and the watchful eye of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, is not tantamount to 'rooting for Ahmedenijad'.

Those expressing dismay that the Iranian election might have been fixed should also be reminded that water is wet. This wasn't a fair or open election and was fixed before it began. All four candidates were hand selected and pre-approved by the Guardian Council. As long as Iran remains a police state run by the Guardian Council and Revolutionary Guard, it doesn't matter who the frontman is.

I truly hope the path to success for the Obama Presidency and Clinton State Dept was more than hope that Ahmedenijad would lose the election. Mousavi had indicated a willingness to talk about Iran's nuclear program, but also indicated that he had no interest in ending the program. Hopefully, the Obama administration will learn from this and realize that international relations is more than speeches to adoring crowds and get serious about dealing with nations like Iran and NK.

I wonder what the Obama administration will do now that the silver bullet they fired in Cairo has failed to transform the entire region.

patteeu

06-14-2009, 08:24 AM

You should care about America's role in this, because America is truly why this is happening. Look at those videos. Look at the clothes those people are wearing. A culture bomb is going off in their country with the megaton force of Hiroshima. This is what a free-trader's foriegn policy is all about. The more we open our borders and culture to people in free and honest trade, the more westernized they become. Plato's cave takes care of the rest.

This is the sort of revolution that we should have worked to inspire in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Militant islamists like al Qaeda don't like that sort of thing and you'll generate blowback if you allow it to continue.

blaise

06-14-2009, 08:24 AM

I was never under the impression Iran had fair elections.

***SPRAYER

06-14-2009, 08:44 AM

Haliburton had something to do with this I bet.

NCarlsCorner2

06-14-2009, 08:45 AM

It's Bush's Fault.

***SPRAYER

06-14-2009, 08:47 AM

Dick Cheney is responsible!

NCarlsCorner2

06-14-2009, 08:49 AM

He was telling Bush what to do.

***SPRAYER

06-14-2009, 08:58 AM

He was telling Bush what to do.

Yup. Cos Bush is dum.

:drool:

Frankie

06-14-2009, 09:08 AM

Who's cheering for him? It's a shame that the Iranian Al Gore has succeeded where the US Al Gore failed.

Who is the Iranian Al Gore?

Frankie

06-14-2009, 09:09 AM

I wonder what the Obama administration will do now that the silver bullet they fired in Cairo has failed to transform the entire region.
LMAO
Entire?! Is this the straw the Right wingers are holding on to? Lebanon was nothing?

Frankie

06-14-2009, 09:12 AM

It's Bush's Fault.

Your sarcasm is inadvertently has some truth to it. Bush policies HELPED Ahmadinejad to take more root than you think.

Frankie

06-14-2009, 09:13 AM

Yup. Cos Bush is dum.

:drool:

Obviously a lot of his followers are too. It's "because" and "dumb" buddy.

NCarlsCorner2

06-14-2009, 09:15 AM

And Obama's policies helped get him re-elected.:banghead:

Frankie

06-14-2009, 09:23 AM

And Obama's policies helped get him re-elected.:banghead:

How? would you like to expand on that piece of wisdom?

***SPRAYER

06-14-2009, 09:25 AM

Obviously a lot of his followers are too. It's "because" and "dumb" buddy.

:stupid:

NCarlsCorner2

06-14-2009, 09:28 AM

How? would you like to expand on that piece of wisdom?

He's not a threat, he has a right to have nuclear, he's not a bad guy Obama just needs to sit down and have a talk with him.:doh!:

Frankie

06-14-2009, 09:29 AM

"I am with stupid"

Congratulations. I knew you had help from a colleague on those incredibly idiotic posts. Congrats to both of you.

Frankie

06-14-2009, 09:31 AM

He's not a threat, he has a right to have nuclear, he's not a bad guy Obama just needs to sit down and have a talk with him.:doh!:

I asked you to expand on your post, not to repeat the standard Limbaugh-Hannity lines.

NCarlsCorner2

06-14-2009, 09:33 AM

I asked you to expand on your post, not to repeat the standard Limbaugh-Hannity lines.

Obama's policies are a sign of weakness on everything, Biden was right Obama would be tested and he has failed with both Iran and North Korea.

***SPRAYER

06-14-2009, 09:34 AM

Congratulations. I knew you had help from a colleague on those incredibly idiotic posts. Congrats to both of you.

Yongmyong-han Dongji.

ROFL

Frankie

06-14-2009, 09:39 AM

Obama's policies are a sign of weakness on everything.

AGAIN, expand on your post. Don't repeat the L-H standard lines.

NCarlsCorner2

06-14-2009, 09:40 AM

AGAIN, expand on your post. Don't repeat the L-H standard lines.

How about you prove me wrong.:thumb:

Frankie

06-14-2009, 09:40 AM

Yongmyong-han Dongji.

ROFL

To shaheh olaghaii. ROFL

Frankie

06-14-2009, 09:42 AM

How about you prove me wrong.:thumb:

You made the claim that Obama HELPED the re-election of Ahmadinejad. As if people actually were driven by Obama to "vote" for him. So do you want to cop out? I'm still waiting for your expert analysis.

***SPRAYER

06-14-2009, 09:43 AM

To shaheh olaghaii. RFL

Nothing gets past you, does it?

:drool:

NCarlsCorner2

06-14-2009, 09:47 AM

You made the claim that Obama HELPED the re-election of Ahmadinejad. As if people actually were driven by Obama to "vote" for him. So do you want to cop out? I'm still waiting for your expert analysis.

Why should the Iranian people vote him out when Obama is telling the world he's not a bad guy he just needs to sit down and have a talk with him, and dont worry about him having nuclear because Obama trust him to use it for power only, so dont vote him out because Obama has full trust in him or he would be openly be calling for the Iranian people to do the right thing and vote him out, but Obama did nothing of the sort.

Ultra Peanut

06-14-2009, 09:56 AM

Watch at least the last minute of this if you're at all fascinated by the human condition.

She was in tears like many women on the streets of Iran’s battered capital. “Throw away your pen and paper and come to our aid,” she said, pointing to my notebook. “There is no freedom here.”

And she was gone, away through the milling crowds near the locked-down Interior Ministry spewing its pick-ups full of black-clad riot police. The “green wave” of Iran’s pre-election euphoria had turned black.

Down the street outside the ghostly campaign headquarters of the defeated reformist candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, the baton-wielding police came in whining phalanxes, two to a motorbike, scattering people, beating them.

“Disperse or we’ll do other things and then you’ll really know.” The voice, from a police megaphone, was steady in its menace. “You, over there, in a white hat, I’m talking to you.”

Anger hung in the air, a sullen pall enveloping the city, denser than its smog, bitter as smashed hope.

I say “defeated.” But everything I have seen suggests Moussavi, now rumored to be under house arrest, was cheated, the Iranian people defrauded, in what Moussavi called an act of official “wizardry.”

Within two hours of the closing of the polls, contrary to prior practice and electoral rules, the Interior Ministry, through the state news agency, announced a landslide victory for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose fantastical take on the world and world history appears to have added another fantastical episode.

Throughout the country, across regions of vast social and ethnic disparity, including Azeri areas that had indicated strong support for Moussavi (himself an Azeri), Ahmadinejad’s margin scarcely wavered, ending at an official 62.63 percent. That’s 24.5 million votes, a breathtaking 8 million more than he got four years ago.

No tally I’ve encountered of Ahmadinejad’s bedrock support among the rural and urban poor, religious conservatives and revolutionary ideologues gets within 6 million votes of that number.

Ahmadinejad won in other candidates’ hometowns, including Moussavi’s. He won in every major city except Tehran. He won very big, against the backdrop of an economic slump.

He won as the Interior Ministry was sealed, opposition Web sites were shut down, text messages were cut off, cell phones were interrupted, Internet access was impeded, dozens of opposition figures were arrested, universities were closed and a massive show of force was orchestrated to ram home the result to an incredulous public.

Overnight, a whole movement and mood were vaporized, to the point that they appeared a hallucination.

The crowds called it a “coup d’état.” They shouted “Marg Bar Dictator” — “Death to the dictator.” Eyes smoldered.

I’ve argued for engagement with Iran and I still believe in it, although, in the name of the millions defrauded, President Obama’s outreach must now await a decent interval.

I’ve also argued that, although repressive, the Islamic Republic offers significant margins of freedom by regional standards. I erred in underestimating the brutality and cynicism of a regime that understands the uses of ruthlessness.

“Here is my country,” a young woman said to me, voice breaking. “This is a coup. I could have worked in Europe but I came back for my people.” And she, too, sobbed.

“Don’t cry, be brave,” a man admonished her.

He was from the Interior Ministry. He showed his ID card. He said he’d worked there 30 years. He said he hadn’t been allowed in; nor had most other employees. He said the votes never got counted. He said numbers just got affixed to each candidate.

He said he’d demanded of the police why “victory” required such oppression. He said he’d fought in the 1980-88 Iraq war, his brother was a martyr, and now his youth seemed wasted and the nation’s sacrifice in vain.

Quoting Ferdowsi, the epic poet, he said, “If there is no Iran, let me be not.” Poets are the refuge of every wounded nation — just ask the Poles — and nowhere more so than here in this hour.

Iran exists still, of course, but today it is a dislocated place. Angry divisions have been exposed, between founding fathers of the revolution — Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, and Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president — and between the regime and the people.

Khamenei, under pressure from Rafsanjani, appeared ready to let the election unfold, but he reversed course, under pressure, or perhaps even diktat, from the Revolutionary Guards and other powerful constituencies.

A harsh clampdown is underway. It’s unclear how far, and for how long, Iranians can resist.

On Vali Asr, the handsome avenue that was festive until the vote, crowds swarmed as night fell, confronting riot police and tear gas. “Moussavi, Moussavi. Give us back our votes,” they chanted.

Majir Mirpour grabbed me. A purple bruise disfigured his arm. He raised his shirt to show a red wound across his back. “They beat me like a pig,” he said, breathless. “They beat me as I tried to help a woman in tears. I don’t care about the physical pain. It’s the pain in my heart that hurts.”

He looked at me and the rage in his eyes made me want to toss away my notebook.

Frankie

06-14-2009, 11:22 AM

Why should the Iranian people vote him out when Obama is telling the world he's not a bad guy he just needs to sit down and have a talk with him, and dont worry about him having nuclear because Obama trust him to use it for power only, so dont vote him out because Obama has full trust in him or he would be openly be calling for the Iranian people to do the right thing and vote him out, but Obama did nothing of the sort.

In case you've been asleep, the Iranian people believe they voted him out. Where do you get your ideas? Your post here is very naive, my friend.

Donger

06-14-2009, 11:23 AM

Iran: Where a few rotten million spoil it for the other eleven.

Frankie

06-14-2009, 11:27 AM

Watch at least the last minute of this if you're at all fascinated by the human condition.

Thank you UP. Great video. I have to admit it makes me a bit misty-eyed. Thanks again.

trndobrd

06-14-2009, 11:31 AM

Just talked to my cousin in Tehran. It was eerie when in the middle of our talk she cut me mid-sentence and told me that the unrest just entered their street!

She said they think the police force is mostly Palestinians hired for things like this. Also rumor has it that last night about 100 pro-Mousavi congress members have been arrested.

The police or the IRGC?

Frankie

06-14-2009, 11:37 AM

Iran: Where a few rotten million spoil it for the other eleven.

Would you like to re-word this so we all understand?

bkkcoh

06-14-2009, 11:38 AM

They must have learned from the democrats. :D

Donger

06-14-2009, 11:39 AM

Would you like to re-word this so we all understand?

No. It seems rather clear to me.

Frankie

06-14-2009, 11:44 AM

No. It seems rather clear to me.

I have no doubt it is clear to YOU. Make it clear to the rest of US. Your wording could have many different interpretations.

petegz28

06-14-2009, 11:44 AM

I find it awesome that the NeoCons are cheering for Amidinajad.

I don't want him elected. But it is amazing how quick the Left always calls the guy they were running against a "cheater". In this case you are just doing more of the same.

Frankie

06-14-2009, 11:45 AM

A couple of very telling pix.

petegz28

06-14-2009, 11:46 AM

He's not a threat, he has a right to have nuclear, he's not a bad guy Obama just needs to sit down and have a talk with him.:doh!:

THIS!

But the Left will pretend Obama never said any of this.

petegz28

06-14-2009, 11:46 AM

A couple of very telling pix.

Big deal. Tell it to the Chinese.

Frankie

06-14-2009, 11:48 AM

THIS!

But the Left will pretend Obama never said any of this.

Please post the incidences of him having uttered those words.

petegz28

06-14-2009, 11:49 AM

Please post the incidences of him having uttered those words.

Are you serious? Are you really that fucking out of touch that you just asked that?

Frankie

06-14-2009, 11:49 AM

Big deal. Tell it to the Chinese.

B, bu,..but I thought Iranians were backward uninformed sheep who like and follow the regime there.

Mr. Flopnuts

06-14-2009, 11:50 AM

It just shows just how morally bankrupt the Republican party has become. Rooting for Ahmedenijad because of what his fall would mean for the success of the Obama presidency is pretty sick when you consider everything that's at stake.

Fuckin sheep. That's all it is. And it's a completely bi partisan effort. The lack of critical thinking by the average American is frightening to say the very least.

The US and Europe are preparing to make a major concession to Iran to end the deadlock over its nuclear programme, according to American and European sources.

In what amounts to a major policy shift, the Obama administration is set to drop a precondition for the start of negotiations on the nuclear issue - that Iran first suspends its uranium enrichment process.

petegz28

06-14-2009, 11:51 AM

B, bu,..but I thought Iranians were backward uninformed sheep who like and follow the regime there.

No one ever said that. Again your intellectual dishonesty is displayed for all to see.

Frankie

06-14-2009, 11:51 AM

Are you serious? Are you really that ****ing out of touch that you just asked that?

Translation: I can't answer a legitimate question therefore I cop out by staging a fake tantrum.

Thanks Pete.

Mr. Flopnuts

06-14-2009, 11:52 AM

B, bu,..but I thought Iranians were backward uninformed sheep who like and follow the regime there.

Let me tell you something. The Iranian people are showing more backbone than this country has in decades. Fucking decades. I understand the oppression experienced there plays a large role in it, but I don't the average American would have the nut sack to do what these people are doing in response to an obvious election fraud.

The president has now stated that Iran is entitled to have nuclear technology. He has added the stipulation that Iran must promise that they will only use the technology for peaceful purposes. Does anyone really think that this is a good idea?

Frankie

06-14-2009, 11:52 AM

No one ever said that. Again your intellectual dishonesty is displayed for all to see.

No one ever said that? On this board nobody ever shit all over "Iranians?" ROFL Where have you been Pete?

petegz28

06-14-2009, 11:53 AM

Let me tell you something. The Iranian people are showing more backbone than this country has in decades. ****ing decades. I understand the oppression experienced there plays a large role in it, but I don't the average American would have the nut sack to do what these people are doing in response to an obvious election fraud.

The Dems work in courts.

petegz28

06-14-2009, 11:53 AM

No one ever said that? On this board nobody ever shit all over "Iranians?" ROFL Where have you been Pete?

Shit all over the Iranians? What dope are you smoking today?

Donger

06-14-2009, 11:54 AM

Frankie, would you support a US-led, covert attempt to over-turn the results of this election?

petegz28

06-14-2009, 11:55 AM

Translation: I can't answer a legitimate question therefore I cop out by staging a fake tantrum.

Thanks Pete.

Oh I answered it. The fact you even pretend Obama never said any of this shows you are either out of touch or being a tool.

You should read my posts before you answer.....it would help you look less dumb.

Frankie

06-14-2009, 11:55 AM

I understand the oppression experienced there plays a large role in it, but I don't the average American would have the nut sack to do what these people are doing in response to an obvious election fraud.

These people also know that their pictures are identifiable and when this thing is finally forced down their very lives are in jeopardy.

Donger

06-14-2009, 11:55 AM

I have no doubt it is clear to YOU. Make it clear to the rest of US. Your wording could have many different interpretations.

Seems like there is still plenty of support for Ahmadinejad. Those would be the rotten type.

petegz28

06-14-2009, 11:56 AM

Seems like there is still plenty of support for Ahmadinejad. Those would be the rotten type.

These are brave, and noble people. You will rarely hear me praise anyone for violence, as I believe it is a last resort and a door that cannot be closed once opened. These folks have clearly come down to their last options. God bless them as they make their stand for freedom.

Big deal ... Romney said the same thing on Stephanololous this morning.

petegz28

06-14-2009, 12:02 PM

These are brave, and noble people. You will rarely hear me praise anyone for violence, as I believe it is a last resort and a door that cannot be closed once opened. These folks have clearly come down to their last options. God bless them as they make their stand for freedom.

I have no problems with them revolting. But for the Left to cry about alleged election fraud is nothing new. Whenever "their guy" loses it is always fraud and cheating.

petegz28

06-14-2009, 12:02 PM

Big deal ... Romney said the same thing on Stephanololous this morning.

Romney ain't the President.

Mr. Flopnuts

06-14-2009, 12:05 PM

I have no problems with them revolting. But for the Left to cry about alleged election fraud is nothing new. Whenever "their guy" loses it is always fraud and cheating.

Pete, I like you and all, but like every other clearly partisan poster on this board you whine as much as they do. You just do it in different ways. It would be nice to just one time see someone call bullshit on their own party.

I'm not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I'll tell you right now I voted for Obama and he fucking lied to me. My taxes have increased. Bush was an arrogant, ignorant, piece of shit, and there are very few people on any side of the 2 party political spectrum that I trust. It's called critical thinking and analysis. Most of you should try it sometime.

Donger

06-14-2009, 12:06 PM

Big deal ... Romney said the same thing on Stephanololous this morning.

The president has now stated that Iran is entitled to have nuclear technology. He has added the stipulation that Iran must promise that they will only use the technology for peaceful purposes. Does anyone really think that this is a good idea? "

So your proof is another op-ed from a Right-wing blog. LMAO Ok let's pretend that's admissible evidence. The post you supported claims Obama says "He (Ahmadinejad) is a nice guy and should have 'Nuclear.'" All I read in your biased "proof" is that he said "Iran" is entitled to nuclear technology. Now the paranoid Right translates that to "Iran is entitled to have the A-Bomb." But the normals among us read that Iran as a country in the modern world whose utilities demand cause electrical shut down once a week is entitled to have the latest tech to remedy that. The Bomb and Ahmadinejad are separate issues from the countries need for nuclear tech.

petegz28

06-14-2009, 12:06 PM

Pete, I like you and all, but like every other clearly partisan poster on this board you whine as much as they do. You just do it in different ways. It would be nice to just one time see someone call bullshit on their own party.

I'm not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I'll tell you right now I voted for Obama and he ****ing lied to me. My taxes have increased. Bush was an arrogant, ignorant, piece of shit, and there are very few people on any side of the 2 party political spectrum that I trust. It's called critical thinking and analysis. Most of you should try it sometime.

If you think I have never called bullshit on the Repubs you have not paid attention. I have lash marks from Patteeu, Saulgood and others if you cared to look.

You should take a little of your own advice, my friend. I have slammed the Right plenty.

Donger

06-14-2009, 12:07 PM

I voted for Obama and he ****ing lied to me. My taxes have increased.

LMAO

Frankie

06-14-2009, 12:07 PM

Shit all over the Iranians? What dope are you smoking today?

Whatever.

petegz28

06-14-2009, 12:07 PM

So your proof is another op-ed from a Right-wing blog. LMAO Ok let's pretend that's admissible evidence. The post you supported claims Obama says "He (Ahmadinejad) is a nice guy and should have 'Nuclear.'" All I read in your biased "proof" is that he said "Iran" is entitled to nuclear technology. Now the paranoid Right translates that to "Iran is entitled to have the A-Bomb." But the normals among us read that Iran as a country in the modern world whose utilities demand cause electrical shut down once a week is entitled to have the latest tech to remedy that. The Bomb and Ahmadinejad are separate issues from the countries need for nuclear tech.

Ok, so mine from there, my pther post from the Guadian and Donger's from the WashingtonPost are all BS.....ok

petegz28

06-14-2009, 12:08 PM

Whatever.

Exactly...whatever you lying tool.

Mr. Flopnuts

06-14-2009, 12:08 PM

If you think I have never called bullshit on the Repubs you have not paid attention. I have lash marks from Patteeu, Saulgood and others if you cared to look.

You should take a little of your own advice, my friend. I have slammed the Right plenty.

No, I don't need to take my own advice because I do it all the time. But, I did wrong you individually. Upon further thought, I've seen you slam everyone for everything and I'm proud of you for it. You are a critical thinker and I apologize for lashing out at you when my frustration clearly lies with other posters on this board.

Frankie

06-14-2009, 12:09 PM

I have no problems with them revolting. But for the Left to cry about alleged election fraud is nothing new. Whenever "their guy" loses it is always fraud and cheating.

The left and the rest of the world are wrong. Only the right Limbaugh cattle are correct.LMAO

petegz28

06-14-2009, 12:10 PM

The left and the rest of the world are wrong. Only the right Limbaugh cattle are correct.LMAO

The rest of the world doesn't get to vote, sheesh

petegz28

06-14-2009, 12:10 PM

No, I don't need to take my own advice because I do it all the time. But, I did wrong you individually. Upon further thought, I've seen you slam everyone for everything and I'm proud of you for it. You are a critical thinker and I apologize for lashing out at you when my frustration clearly lies with other posters on this board.

word...now off to the Royals thread

Frankie

06-14-2009, 12:11 PM

The rest of the world doesn't get to vote, sheesh

And your point?

Mr. Flopnuts

06-14-2009, 12:11 PM

LMAO

They're about to go up considerably more after we pass "universal" health care. I've always been conservative at heart because I value civil liberties. I felt pretty boxed into a corner this last election. I don't expect that to change anytime soon. To quote a common aspect of Shtspryr posts,

"Iran has the right to nuclear power" = "Ahmadinejad is nice and should have the H-Bomb."

Paranoid much?

petegz28

06-14-2009, 12:18 PM

And your point?

It doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks. Just like "the rest of the world" was mad when Kerry lost. Too bad.

Uncle_Ted

06-14-2009, 12:18 PM

He probably doesn't understand, either.

Actually I think it's you guys that don't understand ... under the NPT any country is allowed to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes so long as they comply with safeguards in the treaty against building nuclear weapons. Iran hasn't been in full compliance with these, which is an enforcement problem, not a "rights" problem.

I haven't read the links you guys provided, but if that's all Obama is saying ... well, that's been the policy of every presidential administration since 1970. Going ape-shit over it is silly.

petegz28

06-14-2009, 12:21 PM

Actually I think it's you guys that don't understand ... under the NPT any country is allowed to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes so long as they comply with safeguards in the treaty against building nuclear weapons. Iran hasn't been in full compliance with these, which is an enforcement problem, not a "rights" problem.

I haven't read the links you guys provided, but if that's all Obama is saying ... well, that's been the policy of every presidential administration since 1970. Going ape-shit over it is silly.

Remember that.....

Frankie

06-14-2009, 12:28 PM

It doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks. Just like "the rest of the world" was mad when Kerry lost. Too bad.

And that attitude has worked for us how?

petegz28

06-14-2009, 12:29 PM

And that attitude has worked for us how?

Dude what do you not get? We are our own country. Iran is their own country. It doesn't matter what "the rest of the world thinks". Got it?

Donger

06-14-2009, 12:30 PM

Frankie, please answer the question I posed in 73. Thanks.

Frankie

06-14-2009, 12:31 PM

Actually I think it's you guys that don't understand ... under the NPT any country is allowed to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes so long as they comply with safeguards in the treaty against building nuclear weapons. Iran hasn't been in full compliance with these, which is an enforcement problem, not a "rights" problem.

I haven't read the links you guys provided, but if that's all Obama is saying ... well, that's been the policy of every presidential administration since 1970. Going ape-shit over it is silly.

:bravo:
Here's a man who gets it. Rep.

Donger

06-14-2009, 12:32 PM

Iran hasn't been in full compliance with these

I'm sure that they are just confused and not aware of their obligations.

Frankie

06-14-2009, 12:33 PM

Frankie, please answer the question I posed in 73. Thanks.

Sorry I missed it. Watch your PMs in a few minutes.

Donger

06-14-2009, 12:38 PM

Sorry I missed it. Watch your PMs in a few minutes.

Why not just answer on the BB? So, you are okay with covert action to alter the election results/get rid of Ahmadinejad, correct?

Frankie

06-14-2009, 12:41 PM

Why not just answer on the BB? So, you are okay with covert action to alter the election results/get rid of Ahmadinejad, correct?

You asked and you received your answer sir. Where I choose to answer it is my business. Don't you think?

petegz28

06-14-2009, 12:42 PM

You asked and you received your answer sir. Where I choose to answer it is my business. Don't you think?

Chicken shit.ROFL

Donger

06-14-2009, 12:44 PM

You asked and you received your answer sir. Where I choose to answer it is my business. Don't you think?

Sure. I take it you would not have agreed with Operation Ajax?

Frankie

06-14-2009, 12:47 PM

Chicken shit.ROFL

Hey you get two "whatever" replies in one day. Good job. :rolleyes:

Mojo Jojo

06-14-2009, 12:48 PM

To jAZ , Frankie, Orange and all. Give me your opinion what does BHO do now? Will he sit down with a leader who rigged an election to discuss politics...will he treat Iran as an outlaw nation and refuse to recognize them, or something else? Many people were excited that BHO was going to be willing to talk with Iran, but given recent events can he?

I'm not looking for the usual right vs. left BS; I'm looking for honest opinions.

petegz28

06-14-2009, 12:50 PM

To jAZ , Frankie, Orange and all. Give me your opinion what does BHO do now? Will he sit down with a leader who rigged an election to discuss politics...will he treat Iran as an outlaw nation and refuse to recognize them, or something else? Many people were excited that BHO was going to be willing to talk with Iran, but given recent events can he?

I'm not looking for the usual right vs. left BS; I'm looking for honest opinions.

If Frankie and Co. are right, and Ahmenutjob rigged the election, doesn't Obama continuing on with him legitimize it all?

Frankie

06-14-2009, 12:51 PM

Sure. I take it you would not have agreed with Operation Ajax?

Operation Ajax is the root cause of the Iranian suspicion of the US and the reason that country is where it is now. Toppling a true leader of the people who had the backing of the middle-class and the educated is worlds apart from what you are trying to take this debate to.

Frankie

06-14-2009, 01:00 PM

To jAZ , Frankie, Orange and all. Give me your opinion what does BHO do now? Will he sit down with a leader who rigged an election to discuss politics...will he treat Iran as an outlaw nation and refuse to recognize them, or something else? Many people were excited that BHO was going to be willing to talk with Iran, but given recent events can he?

I'm not looking for the usual right vs. left BS; I'm looking for honest opinions.

Yes to the sit-down if the alternative is an invasion. This is a country that in time can stand up on their own eventually. Ruining it by staging another Iraq style invasion will turn the people against the US and reverse the potential of a normal relationship. One big reason is that the people will see it as a US attempt to "FORCE" a change and create a society in ruins that will NEED to accept one sided deals with US companies. Plus if say there are offers of Nuke tech help for peaceful means and the regime still refuses, then Obama will have forced their hand to reveal Bomb aspirations.

Frankie

06-14-2009, 01:01 PM

If Frankie and Co. are right, and Ahmenutjob rigged the election, doesn't Obama continuing on with him legitimize it all?

No.

petegz28

06-14-2009, 01:03 PM

No.

LMAO, I knew you would say that.

so Obama dealing with a guy who won a rigged election doesn't legitimize the cheater?

ROFLROFLROFLROFL

Only Frankie could come to such a conclusion

Frankie

06-14-2009, 01:07 PM

LMAO, I knew you would say that.

so Obama dealing with a guy who won a rigged election doesn't legitimize the cheater?

The world still dealt with George Bush. It's called International politics. Go read something.

Mojo Jojo

06-14-2009, 01:09 PM

Yes to the sit-down if the alternative is an invasion. This is a country that in time can stand up on their own eventually. Ruining it by staging another Iraq style invasion will turn the people against the US and reverse the potential of a normal relationship. One big reason is that the people will see it as a US attempt to "FORCE" a change and create a society in ruins that will NEED to accept one sided deals with US companies. Plus if say there are offers of Nuke tech help for peaceful means and the regime still refuses, then Obama will have forced their hand to reveal Bomb aspirations.

Thank you for the answer. If you don't mind I have a follow up for you. If you are willing to help Iran with Nuclear Power for their country, how do you feel about expanding Nuclear Power in our country? Just let me know. Thanks.

Frankie

06-14-2009, 01:13 PM

Thank you for the answer. If you don't mind I have a follow up for you. If you are willing to help Iran with Nuclear Power for their country, how do you feel about expanding Nuclear Power in our country? Just let me know. Thanks.

I AM actually hoping for other techs to replace nukes. For the time being I find myself very conflicted on the issue of expanding Nuclear Power in our country. Assuming you meant it as peaceful means.

petegz28

06-14-2009, 01:14 PM

The world still dealt with George Bush. It's called International politics. Go read something.

Geroge Bush won the election twice you tard. Go read something.

Frankie

06-14-2009, 01:15 PM

Geroge Bush won the election twice you tard. Go read something.

Can you say that beyond a shadow of doubt?

petegz28

06-14-2009, 01:20 PM

Can you say that beyond a shadow of doubt?

Yes I can. Bush won the first count and machine recounts in Florida. The whole court involved, handcounts in cherry-picked counties as all Bs and a waste of time. And my point stands...."your guy" lost, so you go straight to the cheating card. I notice there were no claims of voter fraud or broken machines, though none were really replaced from the last elections, when Obama won.

Your guy wins, everything is on the up and up. Your guy loses and the other guy had to cheat, there is no other explanation.

That is the problem you and the Left suffer from. Ahmenutjob probably did cheat. I wouldn't be surprised at all. But the fact is the Left bellows this same cry everytime they don't like the result. And now they are doing it for elections that aren't even in this country.

Nightwish

06-14-2009, 01:28 PM

Yes I can. Bush won the first count and machine recounts in Florida. The whole court involved, handcounts in cherry-picked counties as all Bs and a waste of time.
The biggest allegation of cheating had nothing to do with the recounts or hanging chads or anything like that. It had to do with the fact that the State of Florida hired a private company from Texas, a company with ties to the Bush family and the GOP, to scrub the rolls, and that company illegally scrubbed more than 8000 names from the voter rolls, more than 3/4 of whom were registered Democrats.

petegz28

06-14-2009, 01:40 PM

The biggest allegation of cheating had nothing to do with the recounts or hanging chads or anything like that. It had to do with the fact that the State of Florida hired a private company from Texas, a company with ties to the Bush family and the GOP, to scrub the rolls, and that company illegally scrubbed more than 8000 names from the voter rolls, more than 3/4 of whom were registered Democrats.

funny how that was never mentioned by Al Gore.....:hmmm:

I guess we should add that to the list of hanging chads, buttefly ballots and racial opression.

Donger

06-14-2009, 02:02 PM

Operation Ajax is the root cause of the Iranian suspicion of the US and the reason that country is where it is now. Toppling a true leader of the people who had the backing of the middle-class and the educated is worlds apart from what you are trying to take this debate to.

I'm not trying to take it anywhere. I was just asking a question. I'm just surprised that you favor US intervention in another country's affairs.

Donger

06-14-2009, 02:04 PM

Yes to the sit-down if the alternative is an invasion. This is a country that in time can stand up on their own eventually. Ruining it by staging another Iraq style invasion will turn the people against the US and reverse the potential of a normal relationship. One big reason is that the people will see it as a US attempt to "FORCE" a change and create a society in ruins that will NEED to accept one sided deals with US companies. Plus if say there are offers of Nuke tech help for peaceful means and the regime still refuses, then Obama will have forced their hand to reveal Bomb aspirations.

Okay, so as long as we do it covertly, you're fine with us fostering regime change?

BucEyedPea

06-14-2009, 02:24 PM

Okay, so as long as we do it covertly, you're fine with us fostering regime change?

This. I am more of the opinion that we mind our own business and let countries like that know that if you ever fuck with us it will be the last thing your country ever does.

I hate this, "we are the world police\babysitter\banker\hospital" bullshit.

orange

06-14-2009, 02:26 PM

STOP THE PRESSES! U.S. PRESIDENT AFFIRMS IRAN HAS RIGHT TO NUCLEAR POWER!

Bush: Iran has right to civilian nuclear program
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 September 2005, 13:17 CDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Tuesday said Iran had a right to a civilian nuclear program if it did not gain expertise or materials to build an atomic weapon.

The United States is concerned that Iran's nuclear program is aimed at producing weapons, and Bush said he would be "speaking candidly about Iran" with Chinese President Hu Jintao and Russian President Vladimir Putin, who are gathering in New York for a United Nations world summit.

Iran says it has every right to develop nuclear technology to generate electricity, while the United States and the European Union want the U.N. Security Council to take up Iran's case after it resumed uranium processing last month.

"They have insisted that they have a civilian nuclear program, and I thought a rational approach to that would be to allow them to receive enriched uranium from a third party under the guise of international inspections that will enable them to have civilian nuclear power without learning how to make a bomb," Bush said at a press conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

The United States last month explicitly accepted for the first time that Iran could develop civilian nuclear programs, backing an EU proposal to allow Tehran to pursue atomic power in exchange for giving up fuel work.

Actually I think it's you guys that don't understand ... under the NPT any country is allowed to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes so long as they comply with safeguards in the treaty against building nuclear weapons. Iran hasn't been in full compliance with these, which is an enforcement problem, not a "rights" problem.

I haven't read the links you guys provided, but if that's all Obama is saying ... well, that's been the policy of every presidential administration since 1970. Going ape-shit over it is silly.

Last I read they were in compliance.

Mr. Flopnuts

06-14-2009, 02:30 PM

This. I am more of the opinion that we mind our own business and let countries like that know that if you ever fuck with us it will be the last thing your country ever does.

I hate this, "we are the world police\babysitter\banker\hospital" bullshit.

Perfect. Although I have no problem with intervening in areas of basic human freedom if requested by the proper representation of the oppressed.

petegz28

06-14-2009, 02:31 PM

STOP THE PRESSES! U.S. PRESIDENT AFFIRMS IRAN HAS RIGHT TO NUCLEAR POWER!

Bush: Iran has right to civilian nuclear program
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 September 2005, 13:17 CDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Tuesday said Iran had a right to a civilian nuclear program if it did not gain expertise or materials to build an atomic weapon.

The United States is concerned that Iran's nuclear program is aimed at producing weapons, and Bush said he would be "speaking candidly about Iran" with Chinese President Hu Jintao and Russian President Vladimir Putin, who are gathering in New York for a United Nations world summit.

Iran says it has every right to develop nuclear technology to generate electricity, while the United States and the European Union want the U.N. Security Council to take up Iran's case after it resumed uranium processing last month.

"They have insisted that they have a civilian nuclear program, and I thought a rational approach to that would be to allow them to receive enriched uranium from a third party under the guise of international inspections that will enable them to have civilian nuclear power without learning how to make a bomb," Bush said at a press conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

The United States last month explicitly accepted for the first time that Iran could develop civilian nuclear programs, backing an EU proposal to allow Tehran to pursue atomic power in exchange for giving up fuel work.

Except Obama put aside the plutonium issue that Bush said he would not deal with Iran unless they complied.

The fact of the matter is they have a Right to do whatever they want. We should mind our own business. Having said that when their leader comes on TV threatening to wipe countries off the face of the map he is inviting an ass-whipping on his country.

orange

06-14-2009, 02:33 PM

To jAZ , Frankie, Orange and all. Give me your opinion what does BHO do now? Will he sit down with a leader who rigged an election to discuss politics...will he treat Iran as an outlaw nation and refuse to recognize them, or something else? Many people were excited that BHO was going to be willing to talk with Iran, but given recent events can he?

I'm not looking for the usual right vs. left BS; I'm looking for honest opinions.

First, you're putting the cart before the horse a little. Let's see how this plays out. Obama should handle this the way we handled the Communists taking over Russia (when they deposed Gorbachev - not the first time) - i.e. stand back and watch.

Second, assuming Ahmadinejad remains after crushing the opposition, he should continue to be treated as an international pariah - sanctions, etc. But we should still seek to end their nuclear weapons ambitions through non-war means (yes, that means mainly diplomacy). It would become far easier to get more sanctions etc. through the U.N. with an obvious dictator sitting there in Iran, in fact.

BucEyedPea

06-14-2009, 02:40 PM

I'm opposed to sanctions. They don't work and make the people suffer....just like under Saddam. They are also an act of war designed to weaken a country prior to invasion like Iraq. Communication and trade means the more they rub elbows with others the less likely they'd want to attack anyone ( which I doubt they'd do using conventional war). I posted before on this board about how they were willing to put everything on the table even recognize Israel prior to the Iraq invasion. It was worked out with a Swiss negotiator. Rove refused to pass it on. We're being sold another pack of lies. And with Rahm Emmanuel Obama's cofs it's likely that Obama is being fed NeoCon lies too. I mean he's a citizen of Israel in too important a position to influence our govt. I don't like it.

Donger

06-14-2009, 03:06 PM

And with Rahm Emmanuel Obama's cofs it's likely that Obama is being fed NeoCon lies too. I mean he's a citizen of Israel in too important a position to influence our govt.

He is?

dirk digler

06-14-2009, 03:25 PM

It seems things are getting alot worse in Iran unfortunately. They are now bringing in tanks and it is reported that both ABC and NBC offices were raided and all their equipment confiscated so they can't report what is probably going to end up a massacre at some point.

BucEyedPea

06-14-2009, 03:41 PM

He is?

Yes he is. A dual citizen. But still a citizen of another country.

Donger

06-14-2009, 03:44 PM

Yes he is. A dual citizen. But still a citizen of another country.

I don't believe he is. Can you provide some evidence?

BucEyedPea

06-14-2009, 03:45 PM

I don't believe he is. Can you provide some evidence?

Are you incapable of googling to check it out? I thought this was pretty well known.
Don't give me that I made the claim I have to back it up. I check out other people's claims all the time and then post it.

orange

06-14-2009, 03:52 PM

Are you incapable of googling to check it out? I thought this was pretty well known.
Don't give me that I made the claim I have to back it up. I check out other people's claims all the time and then post it.

It's not at all "well-known" - or true - unless you count comments on message boards as "evidence."

An ally of his opponent in a Congressional election in Illinois made the allegation, but there is nothing to substantiate it.

Zogby flat out called it false last year. You are invited to find anything resembling proof.

This, of course, was neither the content nor the concerns raised by the emails I received. Some charged that Emanuel was an Israeli citizen or a dual U.S.-Israeli national (he is neither, he was born in Chicago in 1959); or, they alleged that he served in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), losing his finger confronting a Syrian tank during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon (he did not serve in the IDF, and lost his finger in a freak accident while working as a teenager in an Arby's restaurant). A few accused Emanuel of skipping U.S. military service to join the IDF in 1991 (also not true -- in the midst of the 1991 Gulf War, while U.S. forces were manning Patriot missile batteries in Israel and the Arab Gulf, Emanuel volunteered for a few weeks, as a civilian, doing maintenance on Israeli vehicles). The most recent story alleges that Rahm Emanuel was fired from the White House in 1998 after being implicated by the FBI, together with Monica Lewinsky, in a Mossad plot to spy on then-President Clinton (a total fabrication, compliments of a shady character who claims to have been a U.S. intelligence official and is a purveyor of many bizarre tales).

That stories such as these have been circulating, and have taken hold, is as reprehensible as the "Barack Obama is a secret Muslim/Manchurian candidate" tale, or the anti-Arab anti-Muslim canards to which I and many of my colleagues have been subjected over the years.

Are you incapable of googling to check it out? I thought this was pretty well known.
Don't give me that I made the claim I have to back it up. I check out other people's claims all the time and then post it.

I did Google it. I found nothing to support your claim.

BucEyedPea

06-14-2009, 04:09 PM

I did Google it. I found nothing to support your claim.

Yeah,I'm googling too. But I read it in a mainstream source last fall. I'm also reading that at one time he didn't deny it but now does and that wiki cleaned, at least his fathers page up. I saw something in Haaretz but that has nothing now either.

So now I'll have to go to a non mainstream source. Giraldi is a former CIA agent who now writes for anti-war.com which is a libertarian anti-war site.

Though born in Chicago, he was an Israeli citizen through his father until he, according to his own account, renounced his dual citizenship when he turned 18. When the United States went to war with Iraq in 1991 the 31-year-old Emanuel rushed off to join the colors, though the colors in this case were the blue and white flag of Israel. He claims that he was a civilian volunteer in the Israeli army who was assigned the task of "rust-proofing brakes" on military vehicles, an assertion that has been questioned because his father's background suggests that he would likely have been offered something much more important.

Emanuel's father, an Israeli physician, was a member of the terrorist group Irgun in the 1940s. Irgun was responsible for blowing up the King David Hotel and ethnically cleansing much of Palestine through selective massacres of Arab civilians. In an interview in the Jerusalem Post, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel said he was convinced that his son's appointment as White House chief of staff would be good for Israel. ...

Other Israelis and prominent American supporters of Israel also see Emanuel as their man in the White House. The respected Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz hailed his appointment, describing him unambiguously as an Israeli. William Daroff of the United Jewish Communities also praised Emanuel, describing him as "a good friend of Israel, coming from good Irgun stock."

In Congress, Emanuel has been a consistent and vocal pro-Israel hardliner, particularly close to right-wing politicians such as Ariel Sharon and Bibi Netanyahu, sometimes even more so than President Bush.

Not surprisingly, Emanuel has always been in favor of the Iraq war, and he supports an aggressive policy toward Iran.

Never heard this one before but is another source:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/72999

Obama faced with security problem at outset of transition process

Wayne Madsen Report November 6, 2008

WMR has learned from informed U.S. intelligence sources that prospective Barack Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has an active FBI counter-intelligence file maintained on him. Emanuel's rise to the Chief of Staff position may pose a significant security problem for President-elect Obama if the FBI insists on conducting the full background security investigation normally required for senior White House officials.

Questions about Emanuel's links to the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad, were allegedly so great that President Bill Clinton was forced to dismiss Emanuel from the White House staff in 1998. One of the FBI agents who discovered Emanuel's dealings with Israeli intelligence was, according to our sources, the late FBI counter-terrorism Assistant Director John O'Neill. O'Neill retired after being set up in a smear operation involving a temporarily stolen brief case in 2001. O'Neill and another FBI agent who still works for the bureau and shall remain nameless at this point to protect him and his career discovered that Emanuel was heavily involved in the decision to place intern Monica Lewinsky close to President Clinton. O'Neill accepted the top security position for Kroll Associates at the World Trade Center. O'Neill was killed in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. WMR has also reported that O'Neill was a close friend of slain retired Houston CIA station chief Roland V. "Tony" Carnaby, who was similarly investigating Israeli intelligence operations in the Houston area when Houston police shot and killed him last April.

Emanuel reportedly had knowledge of Israeli intelligence penetration of White House communications systems and Lewinsky, in sworn testimony before the Office of Independent Counsel, stated: "He [Clinton] suspected that a foreign embassy [it is now known that embassy was that of Israel] was tapping his telephones, and he proposed cover stories." Lewinsky continued, "If ever questioned, she should say that the two of them were just friends. If anyone ever asked about their phone sex, she should say that they knew their calls were being monitored all along, and the phone sex was just a put on."

WMR has learned from U.S. intelligence sources that Emanuel was discovered to be part of a political intelligence and blackmail operation directed against Clinton by Israel's Likud Party and Binyamin Netanyahu to sink Clinton's proposed Middle East peace deal. We have also learned that the FBI investigation of Emanuel is part of a file code-named the "Mega file." "Mega" is a reference to a top-level Mossad agent in the Reagan administration who was said to have run a number of Israeli agents, including U.S. Navy spy Jonathan Pollard."

BucEyedPea

06-14-2009, 04:16 PM

Another website has given front-page treatment to that Giraldi article:

Yeah so. Do you usually defend your positions using smear by association. That's what was done to Obama during the election too. It didn't seem to change your opinion.

orange

06-14-2009, 04:23 PM

Yeah so. Do you usually defend your positions using smear by association. That's what was done to Obama during the election too. It didn't seem to change your opinion.

Isn't this whole business about Emanuel "smear by association?"

"And with Rahm Emmanuel Obama's cofs it's likely that Obama is being fed NeoCon lies too. I mean he's a citizen of Israel in too important a position to influence our govt. I don't like it."

Except that he isn't. Even the "source" you quoted claimed Emanuel renounced his Israeli citizenship at 18. And again, there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

A guy's CLAIM is not evidence.

The crap you just posted about Mossad was already addressed above (#142):

The most recent story alleges that Rahm Emanuel was fired from the White House in 1998 after being implicated by the FBI, together with Monica Lewinsky, in a Mossad plot to spy on then-President Clinton (a total fabrication, compliments of a shady character who claims to have been a U.S. intelligence official and is a purveyor of many bizarre tales).

BucEyedPea

06-14-2009, 04:28 PM

Isn't this whole business about Emanuel "smear by association?"

No it's about my reading he was a dual citizen America and Israel. Nothing more and nothing less. That would question his allegiance. I mean he served in the Israeli forces during PGWI and not the American. That's odd right there. The link to Irgun is more relevant than someone just being a messenger passing along the same data. You're trying to make a racist appeal here.

Anyhow, here is the Haaretz article saying he's from "Irgun stock.
" But that's not saying the same thing. It's just to back one of Giraldi's statements. That checks out.

No it's about my reading he was a dual citizen America and Israel. Nothing more and nothing less. That would question his allegiance. I mean he served in the Israeli forces during PGWI and not the American. That's odd right there. The link to Irgun is more relevant than someone just being a messenger passing along the same data. You're trying to make a racist appeal here.

Anyhow, here is the Haaretz article saying he's from "Irgun stock." But that's not saying the same thing. It's just to back one of Giraldi's statements. That checks out.

"Irgun stock." "Irgun STOCK." "STOCK." That's the very definition of guilt by association.

From that Giraldi article: "Though born in Chicago, he was an Israeli citizen through his father until he, according to his own account, renounced his dual citizenship when he turned 18." Shouldn't we be able to find and read that account (by Emanuel himself) if it actually exists?

No it's about my reading he was a dual citizen America and Israel. Nothing more and nothing less.

I have no doubt that you read ... a rumor. That doesn't cast any real questions about his allegiance.

memyselfI

06-14-2009, 04:32 PM

Yes, it was stolen. Yes, the US should realize what that looks like because we lived it at the beginning of the decade and I would wager we will live it again sooner than we ever imagined we would.

BucEyedPea

06-14-2009, 04:35 PM

Says Rahm served as an Israel Defense Forces volunteer not once, but twice.

You know who Mondoweiss is right? He's pretty good, imo.

BucEyedPea

06-14-2009, 04:37 PM

"Irgun stock." "Irgun STOCK." "STOCK." That's the very definition of guilt by association.
You were doing much more than that. You were trying to imply that because one source was anti-semitic and racist all other reports on this followed suit. And saying he is an Israeli citizen through his father is not guilt by association. That's the source of his citizenship according to Giraldi. Keep trying.

BucEyedPea

06-14-2009, 04:41 PM

Did you know Rabbi Meir Kahane, is a member of the Israeli Knesset and is also an American citizen?

Section 349 (a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides for the loss of American citizenship when an individual applies to become a foreign national. But, under the "Law of Return" in Israel, an American of Jewish origin going to Israel becomes an Israeli citizen automatically unless he declines the option. Thus, no application is involved and U.S. law is circumvented.

The exact number of those who hold dual Israeli-American citizenship is a closely held secret.

Contradictins of Dual Citizenship (http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/071585/850715003.html)
Know nothing about this site. And I have to go. But I'm sure it could be checked out.

orange

06-14-2009, 04:47 PM

That's the source of his citizenship according to Giraldi. Keep trying.

His RENOUNCED birthright citizenship according to Giraldi.

I mean he's a citizen of Israel

Still waiting for any evidence whatsoever.

Says Rahm served as an Israel Defense Forces volunteer not once, but twice.

No evidence of this either. He served as a civilian volunteer.

After working in investment banking, in 2002 Emanuel pursued the U.S. House seat in the 5th District of Illinois previously held by Rod Blagojevich, who chose not to run for re-election, but instead successfully ran for Governor of Illinois.

His strongest opponent of the seven other candidates in the 2002 Democratic primary — the real contest in this heavily Democratic district — was former Illinois State Representative Nancy Kaszak, who had unsuccessfully opposed Blagojevich in the 1996 primary. The most controversial moment of the primary election came when Edward Moskal, president of the Polish American Congress, a political action committee endorsing Kaszak, called Emanuel a "millionaire carpetbagger who knows nothing" about "our heritage". Moskal also charged that Emanuel had dual citizenship with Israel and had served in the Israeli Army. Emanuel did not serve in the Israeli army, but was a civilian volunteer assisting the Israel Defense Forces for a short time during the 1991 Gulf War, repairing truck brakes in one of Israel's northern bases with Sar-El. Emanuel brought together a coalition of Chicago clergy to denounce the incident. He recalled, "One of the proudest moments of my life was seeing people of my district from all backgrounds demonstrate our common values by coming together in response to this obvious attempt to divide them." Moskal's comments were denounced as anti-Semitic by Kaszak.

Is anyone else cautiously optimistic about these developments? This appears so blatant and egregious that it may reach a critical mass where the secular populace finally asserts itself? It has wisps of those heady days right after the invasion when people were on the streets in Iraq shouting 'democracy whiskey sexy,' before the insurgency when the pro-western contingent were delirious with liberation.
I fear a Tiananmen or Insurgency situation, but hope for a hard fought, but hopefully bloodshed minimizing, navigation to a new attitude in the region.

It has been shaping up as a classic contest of Washington power broker versus neighborhood organizer. Slick versus folksy. A big-money machine versus a grass-roots machine.

But today, the fiercely fought Democratic primary in the Fifth Congressional District here threatened to degenerate into Jew versus Pole after ugly ethnic comments by a supporter of one candidate reminiscent of Chicago's political blood baths of generations ago.

The primary, on March 19, on the North Side pits Rahm Emanuel, a former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton whose father was an Israeli, against Nancy Kaszak, a former state legislator whose great-grandparents were among the legions of Polish Roman Catholic immigrants to Chicago in the late 1800's.

The controversial comments were made at a breakfast to celebrate Casimir Pulaski Day, when schools and government offices here close to honor the Polish-American Revolutionary War hero. Edward Moskal, president of the Polish American Congress, a political action committee that had endorsed Ms. Kaszak and gave her an award at the breakfast, called Mr. Emanuel a ''millionaire carpetbagger'' and suggested, erroneously, that he had dual citizenship with Israel and had served in its armed forces.

''The country from which Poles come struggled for democracy,'' Mr. Moskal said. ''While the country's certain elements, to which he gave his allegiance, defiles the Polish homeland and continues to hurl insults at the Polish people,'' apparently a reference to controversies over the use of the Auschwitz death camp.

Regarding Mr. Emanuel's supporters, including a Polish-American publication that had sold advertisements to his campaign, Mr. Moskal said, ''Sadly, there are those among us who will accept 30 pieces of silver to betray Polonia.''

After the comments were broadcast on Monday night on a local television talk show and printed this morning in The Chicago Sun-Times, Mr. Emanuel's campaign trotted out a rainbow of religious leaders to attack what they called the infusion of bigotry and hatred into the race.

Ms. Kaszak, who had at first simply tried to distance herself from the remarks by pointing out that she had not said them, showed up unannounced at the news conference this afternoon to say she was rejecting Mr. Moskal's endorsement and never wanted to speak to him again.

''I object to it,'' she said. ''I'm offended by it. I think it's wrong. We're all here to stand against anti-Semitism.''

Mr. Emanuel said he appreciated the comments but asked Ms. Kaszak to go a step further and tell Mr. Moskal to ''cease and desist.'' After months of being criticized as brash and arrogant, Mr. Emanuel, a veteran of hardball campaigns, said the slurs against his ethnicity cut more deeply.

''Those weren't criticisms of Rahm Emanuel as an individual,'' he said. ''Those statements, the meaning behind those statements, were criticisms of me as a Jewish American.''

The imbroglio could be critical in the final two weeks of the campaign, as the battleground switches from fund-raising to field operations. Although the attack makes Mr. Emanuel, known as a political bulldog, appear sympathetic and could help swing Jewish and female voters to his column, it also could further motivate Polish-Americans, who make up about a fifth of the district's population and have been angered by their declining representation in Washington and Springfield, the state capital.

Such identity politics ''is the stuff that divided the city of Chicago for a long time,'' said Paul Green, director of policy studies at Roosevelt University. ''Historically, this was what it was all about, from the mid- to late-19th century all the way through the first half of the 20th century.''

Until now, the race had drawn national attention and bicoastal campaign contributions, mostly because of Mr. Emanuel, 42, who helped Mr. Clinton recover from the Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky cases. Ms. Kaszak, 51, a plain-spoken lawyer who runs a conservation group, lost her race in 1996 for the same House seat, which once belonged to Dan Rostenkowski and is being vacated by Rod Blagojevich, a candidate for governor.
Six other candidates barely register name recognition in the district, which stretches from high-rise condos on Lake Shore Drive to gritty blue-collar neighborhoods of Poles, Filipinos, Korean-Americans and Hispanic immigrants.

A poll on Friday by the CBS affiliate here showed Ms. Kaszak (pronounced KAH-shahk in Polish neighborhoods and KAY-zack everywhere else) to be leading Mr. Emanuel (Rahmbo to Washington insiders and Dr. Benjamin's son in the district, where his father has had a pediatric practice for decades) by six points, down from eight on Feb. 20.

Mr. Emanuel, who has raised $1.5 million, began broadcasting television advertisements two weeks ago. Ms. Kaszak, with $720,000 raised, has yet to appear on television, although an advertisement that attacks Mr. Emanuel's work on the North American Free Trade Agreement and his involvement in a local utility merger, paid for by Emily's List, a group in Washington that supports female Democrats, began last weekend.

Since November, Mr. Emanuel, in his three-button suits, has spent dawns shaking hands at 39 elevated train stations, afternoons traipsing through bingo halls and bowling alleys and evenings at coffee talks in residents' houses. He has the support not only of Mr. Clinton, but also Mayor Richard M. Daley and the state A.F.L.-C.I.O., powerful weapons in an overwhelmingly Democratic district where the primary is more important than the general election.

''The choice is somebody who can get the job done,'' Mr. Emanuel said. ''I've gotten the job done.'' At a Pulaski Day dinner on Monday, Ms. Kaszak, with her girl-next-door bangs and ponytail and a lapel pin that twinned the Polish and American flags (Mr. Emanuel's just has the Stars and Stripes) was embraced at every table as though by her own grandparents. She charmed them with, ''Dobry wieczor'' (good evening), and, ''Dziekuje bardzo'' (thank you very much), though that is almost the extent of her Polish vocabulary.

''Anybody could go to Washington and know a bunch of people in Washington,'' Ms. Kaszak said. ''What you need to know is you need to know who the people are.''

Is anyone else cautiously optimistic about these developments? This appears so blatant and egregious that it may reach a critical mass where the secular populace finally asserts itself? It has wisps of those heady days right after the invasion when people were on the streets in Iraq shouting 'democracy whiskey sexy,' before the insurgency when the pro-western contingent were delirious with liberation.
I fear a Tiananmen or Insurgency situation, but hope for a hard fought, but hopefully bloodshed minimizing, navigation to a new attitude in the region.

I am.

Baby Lee

06-14-2009, 05:20 PM

I AM actually hoping for other techs to replace nukes. For the time being I find myself very conflicted on the issue of expanding Nuclear Power in our country. Assuming you meant it as peaceful means.

What, praytell?

petegz28

06-14-2009, 05:22 PM

What, praytell?

Beryllium spheres??? :shrug:

BucEyedPea

06-14-2009, 05:27 PM

His RENOUNCED birthright citizenship according to Giraldi.
That's not what Giraldi says, he says that's according to "Rahm's" own "account." So where's Rahm's written or physical proof? As far as I know if he returns to Israel and is also the son of an Israeli his citizenship is automatic unless he refuses it. Where's the evidence he did except that he says so? And if he's a civilian serving in the Israeli army then he's an Israeli civilian. That's enough evidence for me under the Law of Return.

Still waiting for any evidence whatsoever.
I gave it to you: the Law of Return.
However, even though I originally claimed he was one. I then doubted it in the middle of this due to not finding where I first heard it. But the Law of Return bears it out. Unless Rahm can provide written and dated proof he denounced it. Proof is now on you.

No evidence of this either. He served as a civilian volunteer.
You mean Rahm's side of the story is that's all he was. Even if he was, that's still a knock on him imo. Why didn't he serve under America?

Fact: He returned to Israel and helped the Israeli military. I could care less if it was volunteer. Semantics when it comes to allegiances.

Eligibility Requirements under the Law of Return

Those who immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return are [B]immediately entitled to citizenship.....

Originally, the Law of Return was restricted to Jews only. A 1970 amendment, however, stated that, "The rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an oleh under the Nationality Law... are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew".

That's the link to his Dad. That's not smear. Now it's on Rahm to provide more than his word but actual proof he renounced this. Then I'll be convinced.
Since he's a NeoCon though under the allegiance to Strauss he's more likely to be lying.

Baby Lee

06-14-2009, 05:30 PM

Yes, it was stolen. Yes, the US should realize what that looks like because we lived it at the beginning of the decade and I would wager we will live it again sooner than we ever imagined we would.

2000 is nowhere near the ballbark this resides in. 2000 was a very transparent quibbling over outliers of 'attempted' votes and ascertaining the intent of ambiguous markings on a miniscule but dispositive set of ballots.

In Iran, 1/3 of the total vote was shifted from the initial accounts to the 'official result. The interior ministry advised the challenger of his victory, advised the Ayatollah of the challenger's victory, and the Ayatollah even advised the challenger to moderate his victory speech, before the Interior ministry was ousted and the new results were disseminated.

1/3 of the total shifted in a shroud of secrecy, versus .0001% of ambiguous ballots transparently quibbled over, not even playing the same sport.

Baby Lee

06-14-2009, 05:31 PM

Beryllium spheres??? :shrug:

Him and Comanche are gonna unleash Hydrogen's miracle power!!!

orange

06-14-2009, 05:40 PM

I gave it to you: the Law of Return.
However, even though I originally claimed he was one. I then doubted it in the middle of this due to not finding where I first heard it. But the Law of Return bears it out. Unless Rahm can provide written and dated proof he denounced it. Proof is now on you.

It's not at all automatic. The person has to request it and file for it.
Acquisition of citizenship

By return
Main article: Law of Return
The Law of Return defines that all Jews possessing an Oleh's certificate shall become Israel nationals and allowed to immigrate to Israel. Such a certificate would almost automatically turn into Israeli citizenship upon arrival in Israel if so desired. In the 1970s the Law of Return was further expanded, and it was defined that the spouse of a Jew, the children of a Jew and their spouses, and the grandchildren of a Jew and their spouses would also be covered under the Law of Return and thus be eligible for an Oleh's certificate provided that the Jew on behalf of whom they request the certificate did not practice a religion other than Judaism willingly (he or she may, however, be a non-observant Jew). In 1999, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that Jews or the descendants of Jews that actively practice a religion other than Judaism would not be allowed to immigrate to Israel as they would no longer be considered Jews under the provisions of the Law of Return.

Israeli legislators chose to make a clear distinction between the Law of Return, which allows for Jews and their descendants to immigrate to Israel, and between Israel's nationality law, which formally grants Israeli citizenship based on the Oleh's certificate. In other words, the Law of Return in and of itself does not determine Israeli citizenship; it merely allows for Jews and their eligible descendants to permanently relocate within the territory of Israel. The state of Israel does, however, grant citizenship to any applicant who immigrated to Israel via the Law of Return if the applicant so desires, though this is not mandated by the Law of Return itself.

Another important distinction should be made between Israeli citizens who live abroad and Jewish persons who are covered under the provisions of the Law of Return. A non-Israel Jew or an eligible descendant of a non-Israel Jew needs to request approval to immigrate to Israel, a request which can be denied for a variety of reasons including (but not limited to): possession of a criminal record, currently infected with a contagious disease, or otherwise viewed as a threat to Israeli society. Israeli citizens on the other hand are allowed to travel within the borders of Israel whenever they so desire without limitation. Israeli citizens are also the only persons allowed to obtain an Israeli passport. Eligible applicants under the Law of Return have no claim to any of the rights or privileges of an Israeli citizen unless they are formally cleared by the government, given an Oleh's certificate, and granted Israeli citizenship.

Proof is still on you where it always has been.

What Giraldi spoke of was Emanuel's birthright citizenship - the same as Obama's British citizenship:

By birth
A child born to an Israeli citizen (including children born outside of Israel as first generation out of Israel) is considered an Israeli citizen. Persons born outside Israel are Israeli citizens, if their father or mother holds Israeli citizenship, acquired either by birth in Israel, according to the Law of Return, by residence, or by naturalization. In other words, the principle of jus sanguinis is limited to only one generation born abroad. Despite this limitation, the descendants of an Israeli national abroad can obtain Israeli citizenship through other methods, such as the Law of Return, if they are eligible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_nationality_law

Donger

06-14-2009, 05:50 PM

Yeah,I'm googling too. But I read it in a mainstream source last fall. I'm also reading that at one time he didn't deny it but now does and that wiki cleaned, at least his fathers page up. I saw something in Haaretz but that has nothing now either.

So now I'll have to go to a non mainstream source. Giraldi is a former CIA agent who now writes for anti-war.com which is a libertarian anti-war site.

So he may have been a dual citizen up until 18? So what? So was our POTUS.

BucEyedPea

06-14-2009, 05:51 PM

Still hangs up as serving as a civilian in the Israeli military. Sorry, but that's a contradictory act instead of serving in some fashion with US forces during PGWI. It's an outpoint that doesn't add up. So I'd say my position is one of suspicion until there's is more proof than a NeoCon's word.

Donger, did Obama serve in the Indonesian forces as a civilian or the Kenyan forces as a civilian? A civilian of what?

orange

06-14-2009, 05:51 PM

2000 is nowhere near the ballbark this resides in. 2000 was a very transparent quibbling over outliers of 'attempted' votes and ascertaining the intent of ambiguous markings on a miniscule but dispositive set of ballots.

In Iran, 1/3 of the total vote was shifted from the initial accounts to the 'official result. The interior ministry advised the challenger of his victory, advised the Ayatollah of the challenger's victory, and the Ayatollah even advised the challenger to moderate his victory speech, before the Interior ministry was ousted and the new results were disseminated.

1/3 of the total shifted in a shroud of secrecy, versus .0001% of ambiguous ballots transparently quibbled over, not even playing the same sport.

'From Now On, Democracy Doesn't Exist Anymore'

June 14, 2009

Iranian officials say the June 12 presidential vote was free and fair. But reformists are crying foul and some even say a "coup" took place in Iran. RFE/RL correspondent Golnaz Esfandiari spoke to a 29-year-old journalist who works for one of Iran's moderate daily newspapers. She did not want her named to be used because of security fears.

RFE/RL: What happened in Iran or what is happening in Iran? Some call it a coup, while others describe it as an epic and a “people’s election." What is your view as a journalist who is in Tehran?

Iranian Journalist: The important event that took place in Iran is that it wasn’t an election; it was a coup d’etat. [They] stole 24 million votes of the nation and took them away for themselves. If there were really a winner, they would have to celebrate, but instead they beat people. They performed a coup, but they don’t call it a coup.

RFE/RL: What are the indications?

Journalist: Please don’t use the word "fraud" because it is mitigation of what has happened in Iran. Fraud is what was happening in the past 30 years. This is not fraud. They haven’t [counted ] people’s votes. Using the word fraud is like calling a deep cut a small scratch. There was no fraud; it was a coup.

RFE/RL: Please explain why you call it a coup. Based on what?

Journalist: Based on the military atmosphere that is now ruling [in the country], based on the threats against senior officials in the country. What are the elements of a coup in the world? Just now as we’re speaking, [Mahmud Ahmadinejad] said I’ll clean the Iranian establishment of all these corrupted elements. [If this isn’t] a coup, then what is it?

Coup means that right now they’re beating people in the streets. A coup means they didn’t even count people’s votes. They announced the results without opening the ballot boxes. It was sent as a circular to the state television, which announced it. Is it so difficult for the world to understand this?

RFE/RL: How do you think the world should react to what has happened in Iran and what is happening right now -- the protests and the crackdown?

Journalist: Recognizing Iran’s election as an election is a crime against democracy. The countries that have fought for democracy, countries that talk about democracy, if they accept this, they’re betraying themselves. This was not an election. If they accept this, it means they’ve put democracy under question. They’ve launched a coup under the cover of democracy.

This is a very important event. Just look at what the indications for a coup are. Last night, [cellphone] lines were cut; we can’t send SMSs. We can’t check our e-mails. We can’t keep in touch on Facebook. If this was a real election, then why [these measures]? [People] are responding to this in the streets. People were being beaten up in the streets until 4 a.m. They had gone out to be beaten. Everyone is upset and [holding back tears].

RFE/RL: Tehran today witnessed its second day of unrest. There’ve been violent protests in the capital and other cities. Do you expect people to continue protesting in the streets?

Journalist: The nation has been humiliated and this is the first time that they’ve been humiliated this much. People who had boycotted the election voted with eagerness for [Mir Hossein Musavi]. Now they’re hitting them in the face and telling them you have voted for Ahmadinejad. And because of this humiliation, people are out in the streets. They have to pay a price for it and I think they’re ready to pay the price. Even though they’re being beaten up, they don’t leave the streets -- not for a minute.

Today, while Ahamdinejad is lying to people during the celebration for his victory, women and children are being beaten up by the police. And this will continue. These [riot police forces] are terrified because of these lies. That’s why they’re using special forces [to crack down]. Last night I told one of them at the Interior Ministry, I said, "Haven’t you won? You got 24 million votes. You should be proud. Why do you beat people?"

In today’s issue of the [hardline] "Kayhan" daily, [editor Hossein Shariatmadari] has written, "You’ve been shocked by the results of the vote? This is just the beginning. Just wait."

RFE/RL: Dozens of people have been detained. Do you expect things to get worse? Do you expect more pressure?

Journalist: We’re sitting in our newsroom now. Three came from the Interior Ministry and took away a member of our newspaper staff. They just came and took away a journalist. Do you understand the depth of the tragedy? What happened in Iran is unprecedented. They've performed a coup under the cover of democracy, under the cover of elections. This has not happened before; they don’t say who they are. They don’t say it was a coup. Pakistan said it. Hitler would say he’s a Nazi. Mussolini would say, "I’m a fascist." You knew where you were standing.

A skin has been shed here. The Islamic republic has ended; from now on, it’s an Islamic regime. From now on, a republic doesn’t exist [in Iran] anymore; democracy doesn’t exist anymore. These people will not vote anymore, and [authorities] don’t need people’s votes anymore. It’s a turning point. Exactly 30 years and four months after the 1979 Revolution, the republicanism of the establishment was lost. I want you to show the depth of this tragedy. No one comes to detain you while you’re sitting in the newsroom. You don’t go to prison. Just show the depth of the tragedy.

Yes I can. Bush won the first count and machine recounts in Florida. The whole court involved, handcounts in cherry-picked counties as all Bs and a waste of time. And my point stands...."your guy" lost, so you go straight to the cheating card. I notice there were no claims of voter fraud or broken machines, though none were really replaced from the last elections, when Obama won.Oh I stand corrected. If you say this it must be the absolute fact. What was I thinking?!ROFL

Your guy wins, everything is on the up and up. Your guy loses and the other guy had to cheat, there is no other explanation.
Assuming by "your guy" you mean Obama it was a freaking landslide. He left no room for doubt.

However there have been lots and lots of books written, documentaries filmed, and arguments made to point out the very real possibilities of election fraud, hanging chads, hacked voting machines and disenfranchised voters and other stuff in 2000 and 2004. Where there's smoke there is at least some fire. Now tell me if the Right would have any reason to dispute the 2008 election. If so wouldn't your gods Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest of the nut jobs filled the airwaves with protest?

You are so f***ing unbelievably naive.:shake:

Frankie

06-14-2009, 05:57 PM

Last I read they were in compliance.

That's what I thought too.

BucEyedPea

06-14-2009, 05:57 PM

Current US law says that foreign military service will result in loss of US citizenship if the person served as an officer (commissioned or non-commissioned) or the foreign military force is engaged in hostilities against the US; the service was voluntary; and (most importantly) the person intended to give up his US citizenship.

Current US policy goes further. Unless a dual citizen is serving in a "policy level position" in a foreign government, commits treason against the US (e.g., by fighting the US voluntarily during wartime), or acts in a manner considered totally inconsistent with any possible intent to keep US citizenship, the State Department is unlikely to take any action. Further, the current policy statement on foreign military service recognizes that dual citizens sometimes find themselves legally obligated to participate in the military forces of their other country of citizenship, and can do so in such situations without endangering their US status.

So Rahm claims he was a volunteer 'eh? That right there indicates he may have lost his US citizenship and is an Israeli citizen. Hmmm....what say you to that orange?
So he either was a volunteer or legally obligate to serve in the IDF during Persian Gulf War I. This guy sounds like he uses weasel words.

http://www.uscitizenship.info/en_US/faq/citizenship/ans/g60.jsp

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

Donger

06-14-2009, 06:01 PM

Current US law says that foreign military service will result in loss of US citizenship if the person served as an officer (commissioned or non-commissioned) or the foreign military force is engaged in hostilities against the US; the service was voluntary; and (most importantly) the person intended to give up his US citizenship.

Current US policy goes further. Unless a dual citizen is serving in a "policy level position" in a foreign government, commits treason against the US (e.g., by fighting the US voluntarily during wartime), or acts in a manner considered totally inconsistent with any possible intent to keep US citizenship, the State Department is unlikely to take any action. Further, the current policy statement on foreign military service recognizes that dual citizens sometimes find themselves legally obligated to participate in the military forces of their other country of citizenship, and can do so in such situations without endangering their US status.

So Rahm claims he was a volunteer 'eh? That right there indicates he may have lost his US citizenship and is an Israeli citizen. Hmmm....what say you to that orange?
So he either was a volunteer or legally obligate to serve in the IDF during Persian Gulf War I. This guy sounds like he uses weasel words.

http://www.uscitizenship.info/en_US/faq/citizenship/ans/g60.jsp

Did you even read what you posted?

Further, the current policy statement on foreign military service recognizes that dual citizens sometimes find themselves legally obligated to participate in the military forces of their other country of citizenship, and can do so in such situations without endangering their US status.

* EDIT - I should have read the thread more closely myself. I presume he was not legally obligated (a a citizen would be) and volunteered? If so, that kind of negates your assertion that he was a citizen, does it not?

mlyonsd

06-14-2009, 06:02 PM

So if the Mullah's did steal the election this only proves Bush right that Iran is an axis of evil.

Check. Another vindication.

Good luck talking with them now Obama. Maybe you should send the reinstated president an Ipod.

orange

06-14-2009, 06:03 PM

So Rahm claims he was a volunteer 'eh? That right there indicates he may have lost his US citizenship and is an Israeli citizen. Hmmm....what say you to that orange?

http://www.uscitizenship.info/en_US/faq/citizenship/ans/g60.jsp

He was NOT an Israeli citizen, hence there was NO obligation to serve in the IDF. Which is good, because he DIDN'T serve in the IDF. He volunteered and worked with a CIVILIAN organization which supported the IDF (in Emanuel's case, he fixed brakes on IDF vehicles, I believe). Since he was NEVER a member of any foreign armed service, he NEVER jeopardized his U.S. citizenship.

Clear enough?

Frankie

06-14-2009, 06:05 PM

What, praytell?

I have no idea. I'm not an expert. But I have hope in man's innovations.

That's why I said I WAS CONFLICTED!

Frankie

06-14-2009, 06:07 PM

In Iran, 1/3 of the total vote was shifted from the initial accounts to the 'official result. The interior ministry advised the challenger of his victory, advised the Ayatollah of the challenger's victory, and the Ayatollah even advised the challenger to moderate his victory speech, before the Interior ministry was ousted and the new results were disseminated.

1/3 of the total shifted in a shroud of secrecy, versus .0001% of ambiguous ballots transparently quibbled over, not even playing the same sport.

That's interesting. Where did you hear those details?

BucEyedPea

06-14-2009, 06:07 PM

civilian
a nonmilitary citizen

From definitions on the web

So he wasn't really military but a civilian working in it, which means he was a citizen—in this case Israel. Something's fishy here.

Donger

06-14-2009, 06:08 PM

I have no idea. I'm not an expert. But I have hope in man's innovations.

That's why I said I WAS CONFLICTED!

Energy can neither be created or destroyed, only transformed.

Frankie

06-14-2009, 06:09 PM

So if the Mullah's did steal the election this only proves Bush right that Iran is an axis of evil.

ROFL Running out of straws to grasp, are we?

mlyonsd

06-14-2009, 06:11 PM

ROFL Running out of straws to grasp, are we?

Which straw was that?

orange

06-14-2009, 06:11 PM

civilian
a nonmilitary citizen

From definitions on the web

So he was really military but a civilian which means he was a citizen—in this case Israel. Something's fishy here.

The civilian organization he served with is called Sar-El:

Sar-El

Sar-El (Hebrew: שר-אל) is a volunteer program of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Every year about 5,000 volunteers from overseas serve for two or three weeks with the IDF. Their job is neither paid nor armed and is mainly in the logistical, maintaining, catering, supply and medical services. Having volunteers do these jobs saves the army money and spares reserve soldiers from being called up. Volunteers must be at least 17 years old (if accompanied by parents: 14 years) and healthy. Sar-El is subordinate to the Logistics Corps.

History
The program was raised in the summer of 1982 by Brigadier (ret.) Dr. Aharon Davidi (former commander of the IDF Paratrooper and Infantry Corps), when due to the general mobilization during the 1982 Lebanon War in some kibbutzim at the Golan the harvest with crops already ripened was in danger, because all able-bodied farmers were on reserve duty in the IDF. Within a few weeks Davidi recruited some 650 volunteers to lend their support for Israel through volunteer labor on IDF bases, so the kibbuzniks could be sent to their fields. These first volunteers expressed their wish that this volunteer project should be perpetuated, and in the spring of 1983, "Sar-El - The National Project for Volunteers for Israel" was founded as a non-profit, non-political organization. Volunteers from all over the world came to participate in the project, and today, Sar-El is represented in some 30 countries. The majority of Sar-El's volunteers come from "Volunteers for Israel" - (VFI) [1] in the U.S.A., Sar-El Canada (Canadian Volunteers for Israel) [2] in Canada, and "Volontariat Civil" (UPI) in France.

Legal status
The volunteers wear IDF work uniforms with blue Sar-El epaulettes, but they are not soldiers. For this reasons their service usually does not collide with the military laws of the volunteer's home countries.

Meaning
Sar-El is the Hebrew acronym for Sheirut Le’Yisrael, meaning "Service to Israel".

And where in the world did you get that ridiculous definition? Does that mean that all foreigners in America - legally or illegally - are automatically citizens if they don't join the military?

BucEyedPea

06-14-2009, 06:27 PM

The civilian organization he served with is called Sar-El:

Sar-El

Sar-El (Hebrew: שר-אל) is a volunteer program of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Every year about 5,000 volunteers from overseas serve for two or three weeks with the IDF. Their job is neither paid nor armed and is mainly in the logistical, maintaining, catering, supply and medical services. Having volunteers do these jobs saves the army money and spares reserve soldiers from being called up. Volunteers must be at least 17 years old (if accompanied by parents: 14 years) and healthy. Sar-El is subordinate to the Logistics Corps.

History
The program was raised in the summer of 1982 by Brigadier (ret.) Dr. Aharon Davidi (former commander of the IDF Paratrooper and Infantry Corps), when due to the general mobilization during the 1982 Lebanon War in some kibbutzim at the Golan the harvest with crops already ripened was in danger, because all able-bodied farmers were on reserve duty in the IDF. Within a few weeks Davidi recruited some 650 volunteers to lend their support for Israel through volunteer labor on IDF bases, so the kibbuzniks could be sent to their fields. These first volunteers expressed their wish that this volunteer project should be perpetuated, and in the spring of 1983, "Sar-El - The National Project for Volunteers for Israel" was founded as a non-profit, non-political organization. Volunteers from all over the world came to participate in the project, and today, Sar-El is represented in some 30 countries. The majority of Sar-El's volunteers come from "Volunteers for Israel" - (VFI) [1] in the U.S.A., Sar-El Canada (Canadian Volunteers for Israel) [2] in Canada, and "Volontariat Civil" (UPI) in France.

Legal status
The volunteers wear IDF work uniforms with blue Sar-El epaulettes, but they are not soldiers. For this reasons their service usually does not collide with the military laws of the volunteer's home countries.

Meaning
Sar-El is the Hebrew acronym for Sheirut Le’Yisrael, meaning "Service to Israel".

And where in the world did you get that ridiculous definition? Does that mean that all foreigners in America - legally or illegally - are automatically citizens if they don't join the military?

No it meant he was a citizen is all which he is denying he is. I typed in "definition of citizen" and a whole page of web definitions came up. That was the first one. Since he was in Israel that's the context. Your link doesn't say if those volunteers have to be Jewish though. I'd like to know if they are or if any ethnic or nationality or religion can work with them.

It still an out point in terms of his allegiances though.

orange

06-14-2009, 06:39 PM

No it meant he was a citizen is all which he is denying he is. I typed in "definition of citizen" and a whole page of web definitions came up. That was the first one. Since he was in Israel that's the context. Your link doesn't say if those volunteers have to be Jewish though. I'd like to know if they are or if any ethnic or nationality or religion can work with them.

It still an out point in terms of his allegiances though.

Search engines are a good source - they're also a bad source. You should always read before you post to see if something passes the basic common sense test.

As for Sar-El, none of its volunteers were citizens at the time - they are foreigners by definition - though some have no doubt stayed on and become citizens.

According to their website, volunteers don't have to be Jewish though I would guess the vast majority are.

Qualifications
for Participation in Sar-El
The program is open to:

Men and women ages 17 and older (14-16 with parent or guardian); in good physical and mental health.
Those eligible for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return.
Other supporters of Israel.
Exceptions: People who fail to meet the qualifications listed above may apply for an exception through their country's Sar-El representative.

http://www.sar-el.org/newqualis.html

There is still nothing to suggest Emanuel's loyalty is not to the United States. Does he support Israel? Yes. But there are many supporters of Israel who do not support the Israeli right. Obama's taken a tougher line with the Israeli leadership than any president I can remember, and Emanuel hasn't said a word of dissent.

Baby Lee

06-14-2009, 06:44 PM

That's interesting. Where did you hear those details?

andrew sullivan and twitter [yes, twitter] are the most fruitful sites right now.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

BucEyedPea

06-14-2009, 07:09 PM

Search engines are a good source - they're also a bad source. You should always read before you post to see if something passes the basic common sense test.
No, I don't have to do that in this case. I checked the definition elsewhere as well like on line dictionaries. But that definition of civilian is accurate if you check other definitions which I did. I know how to use a dictionary pretty well. A word can have several entries due to several meanings.

I do that on certain cases. In this case I recalled, and I do clearly recall reading msm article that sayin: "Rahm Emmanuel, a dual citizen, has been appointed WH cofs" It wasn't even a controversial article and very matter of fact. It bothered no one that I could see. In fact I checked him out further back then and saw that on wiki too. That's gone now. Either it was a an error and was cleaned up or it's been sanitized.

If a real error, then Rahm is a true chickenhawk

There is still nothing to suggest Emanuel's loyalty is not to the United States. Does he support Israel? Yes. But there are many supporters of Israel who do not support the Israeli right. Obama's taken a tougher line with the Israeli leadership than any president I can remember, and Emanuel hasn't said a word of dissent.
Except Rahm supports the Israeli right. He as well as the rest of them were frustrated with CLinton's lack of wanting to use the military more. Rham was a hawk on Iraq. He just felt Bush didn't make his case to the American people. I think you're being naive here. He's this administrations Karl Rove.

Let's face Iraq was really for Israel, as was PGWI, as is this current contention with Iran. No one's ever going to admit that let alone write it. It would be a PR blunder. Next will be Syria per "A Clean Break." It's the Israel Lobby banging these war drums even per J Street. Rahm is the Israel Lobby in the WH. Just as some NC's around Bush were who did have dual citizenship. Unless Obama outsmarts them. Pat Buchanan thinks he might. But he's in their grips for an attack on Iran.

Otter

06-14-2009, 07:12 PM

I'm not going back and reading every post and where the discussion is exactly at this point but I will say this....

Salute' - let you're government know when you don't agree!

Mexico, are you watching? American, are you?

dirk digler

06-14-2009, 07:25 PM

2000 is nowhere near the ballbark this resides in. 2000 was a very transparent quibbling over outliers of 'attempted' votes and ascertaining the intent of ambiguous markings on a miniscule but dispositive set of ballots.

In Iran, 1/3 of the total vote was shifted from the initial accounts to the 'official result. The interior ministry advised the challenger of his victory, advised the Ayatollah of the challenger's victory, and the Ayatollah even advised the challenger to moderate his victory speech, before the Interior ministry was ousted and the new results were disseminated.

1/3 of the total shifted in a shroud of secrecy, versus .0001% of ambiguous ballots transparently quibbled over, not even playing the same sport.

Yet there is people here that think Ahmadinejad won fair and square.

So if the Mullah's did steal the election this only proves Bush right that Iran is an axis of evil.

Check. Another vindication.

I never once thought the Iranian governement wasn't one of the worst regimes in the world. This is nothing new they have been attacking America and our interest for the last 30 years.

But the people of the country are totally different than the government. The people actually embrace the west for the most part.

KILLER_CLOWN

06-14-2009, 07:30 PM

and the Neocons rejoice as they can proceed to beat the wardrums on Iran.

BucEyedPea

06-14-2009, 07:38 PM

Yet there is people here that think Ahmadinejad won fair and square.

I never once thought the Iranian governement wasn't one of the worst regimes in the world. This is nothing new they have been attacking America and our interest for the last 30 years.

But the people of the country are totally different than the government. The people actually embrace the west for the most part.

When did they attack America?
Please don't give me the hostage crisis when we waged a coup for British Oil in the 1950's giving them the ruthless leader the Shah—compelete with torture being aided by our CIA. It's no wonder they haven't attacked us. They've had shit authoritarian govts for too long. ( kinda like Mexico)

What are American interests? Our national security? That's never been targeted by Iran. Don't tell me Israel which is a foreign country that has to fight it's own war and battles the way we had to ours against native populations.

dirk digler

06-14-2009, 07:47 PM

When did they attack America?
Please don't give me the hostage crisis when we waged a coup for British Oil in the 1950's giving them the ruthless leader the Shah—compelete with torture being aided by our CIA. It's no wonder they haven't attacked us. They've had shit authoritarian govts for too long. ( kinda like Mexico)

What are American interests? Our national security? That's never been targeted by Iran. Don't tell me Israel which is a foreign country that has to fight it's own war and battles the way we had to ours against native populations.

They had a hand in the Marine Barracks bombing, they also had a hand in the 1988 kidnapping and murder of Colonel William Higgins and also the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.

BucEyedPea

06-14-2009, 07:57 PM

They had a hand in the Marine Barracks bombing, they also had a hand in the 1988 kidnapping and murder of Colonel William Higgins and also the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.
regarding the Marine Barracks:
Well, we were in their backyard taking sides what'd you expect with a military intervention like that. Reagan was smart to pull out. He at least recognized getting more involved in the hatreds and hostilitiies of the ME would make us a continued target.

According to the Saudi govt Khobar Towers was Saudi Islamic militants, including many veterans of the Afghan War.” ( wiki) That post dates our leaving permanent military installations on Saudi soil. That's not one of our interests. It's being a pesky interventionist.

Don't take sides and interfere...it just makes new enemies for us. Blowback!

dirk digler

06-14-2009, 08:07 PM

regarding the Marine Barracks:
Well, we were in their backyard taking sides what'd you expect with a military intervention like that. Reagan was smart to pull out. He at least recognized getting more involved in the hatreds and hostilitiies of the ME would make us a continued target.

According to the Saudi govt Khobar Towers was Saudi Islamic militants, including many veterans of the Afghan War.” ( wiki) That post dates our leaving permanent military installations on Saudi soil. That's not one of our interests. It's being a pesky interventionist.

Don't take sides and interfere...it just makes new enemies for us. Blowback!

Any organization that studies terrorism says that Iran financed and coordinated the attack

We later learned that senior members of the Iranian government, including Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Intelligence and Security and the Spiritual Leader's office had selected Khobar as their target and commissioned the Saudi Hezbollah to carry out the operation.

BucEyedPea

06-14-2009, 08:10 PM

Any organization that studies terrorism says that Iran financed and coordinated the attack

We still don't belong getting more deeply embroiled in the ME's conflicts. Nor on their lands. It has made us a target. We've done lots of bad things in Iran too.
We just don't hear about it as much.

Ultra Peanut

06-14-2009, 08:38 PM

Is anyone else cautiously optimistic about these developments? This appears so blatant and egregious that it may reach a critical mass where the secular populace finally asserts itself? I kind of felt that way at first, but this is looking increasingly likely that it's going to end in a ton of deaths and an infuriated but ultimately squelched portion of the populace. The government is too well-organized for this, but the violence and rioting are going to keep going on for a while.

I mean, it'd be great if this somehow ended up with Khomeini getting taken down (Yousef Sanei ownz~), but it's such a long shot that hoping for it feels pretty silly.

Direckshun

06-14-2009, 08:43 PM

I kind of felt that way at first, but this is looking increasingly likely that it's going to end in a ton of deaths and an infuriated but ultimately squelched portion of the populace. The government is too well-organized for this, but the violence and rioting are going to keep going on for a while.

I fall somewhere between you two, UP and BL.

I feel like this election and this experience has been a moral victory, one of many for the progressive Iranian population.

But I haven't the slightest clue if these moral victories will ever translate to actual victories.

Ultra Peanut

06-14-2009, 08:44 PM

It's definitely a step, but it feels a lot like a treadmill.

Direckshun

06-14-2009, 08:46 PM

Is there any truth to the assertion, by the way, that Mousavi's popularity gained traction after the Cairo speech?

Seems a bit pie-in-the-sky to me, but it'd be nice to know one way or the other.

Frankie

06-14-2009, 09:21 PM

andrew sullivan and twitter [yes, twitter] are the most fruitful sites right now.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

Thanks. I'll look at it.

Rain Man

06-14-2009, 09:37 PM

This will sound bad, but I'm not sure that a violent revolution in Iran would be a bad thing. Let them focus internally for several years intstead of externally.

Frankie

06-14-2009, 09:37 PM

I mean, it'd be great if this somehow ended up with Khomeini getting taken down (Yousef Sanei ownz~), but it's such a long shot that hoping for it feels pretty silly.

You mean Khamenei (Khah-Meh-Neh-E). The similarity of the names are purely accidental.

trndobrd

06-14-2009, 09:47 PM

Is there any truth to the assertion, by the way, that Mousavi's popularity gained traction after the Cairo speech?

Seems a bit pie-in-the-sky to me, but it'd be nice to know one way or the other.

Mohammad Khatami dropped out of the race on March 16, throwing his support behind Mousavi. It seems a bit of a stretch to assume someone who was Prime Minister for 8 years (81-89) was able to suddenly gain popularity because of Obama's speech.

Ultra Peanut

06-14-2009, 10:28 PM

You mean Khamenei (Khah-Meh-Neh-E). The similarity of the names are purely accidental.My bad. It felt wrong, but oh so right to my English tongue.

Nightwish

06-15-2009, 01:59 AM

No it meant he was a citizen is all which he is denying he is. I typed in "definition of citizen" and a whole page of web definitions came up. That was the first one.
I assume you meant "definition of civilian," not "citizen."

Above are the dictionary listings, in order of their appearance (excluding one with a broken link, and two which defined "civilian unemployment rate" and "civilian labor force") when I did a Google search for "definition of civilian." The ones with asterisks next to them are the only ones which mention the word "citizen." And even allowing that "citizen" is a necessary part of the definition of civilian, it doesn't indicate that one must be a citizen of the country in which they find themselves at any given time in order to be considered a civilian in that country. A German tourist on vacation in Florida, assuming he is not a member of the German military, is a civilian. We would recognize him as such, Germany would recognize him as such, so would every other nation on earth.

"Volunteers for Israel" is an American volunteer organization which offers aid to Israel, including the IDF, just as Sar-El Canada is a Canadian volunteer organization that offers aid to Israel. These are organizations dedicated to aiding Israel, they are not Israeli organizations, despite being outgrowths of an organization that originated in Israel.

By the way, the Law of Return refers to immigration and settlement, not visitation or temporary service.

Nightwish

06-15-2009, 02:03 AM

Current US law says that foreign military service will result in loss of US citizenship if the person served as an officer (commissioned or non-commissioned) or the foreign military force is engaged in hostilities against the US; the service was voluntary; and (most importantly) the person intended to give up his US citizenship.
Note that it says "and," not "or."

Ahmadinejad. The guy apparently trying to steal the election. Who else?

patteeu

06-15-2009, 07:31 AM

LMAO
Entire?! Is this the straw the Right wingers are holding on to? Lebanon was nothing?

Bush drove the Syrian army out of Lebanon without firing a shot. What did Barack Obama do, prevent Hezbollah from doing what they'd never done before? Is this another one of those "created or saved" things?

JohnnyV13

06-15-2009, 07:32 AM

Buck, do you remember some time back we were talking about the "insurance" function of the US dollar, and how our nation's stability gave our currency value beyond world demand for American goods?

This Iran situation is exactly why rich people in unstable countries keep a nest egg in dollars. I mean, how would you be feeling about your assests in an Iranian bank if you were a rich guy in Iran right now?

patteeu

06-15-2009, 07:35 AM

You made the claim that Obama HELPED the re-election of Ahmadinejad. As if people actually were driven by Obama to "vote" for him. So do you want to cop out? I'm still waiting for your expert analysis.

Here you go, Frankie. Obama helped Ahmadinejad get elected because he made it clear to the Iranian ruling elite that they could do as they please without any fear whatsoever of Obama. They didn't even bother to hide their election rigging because they want the world to know that they are thumbing their noses at the Great Satan and it's impotent leader. How's that?

BucEyedPea

06-15-2009, 07:36 AM

Buck, do you remember some time back we were talking about the "insurance" function of the US dollar, and how our nation's stability gave our currency value beyond world demand for American goods?

This Iran situation is exactly why rich people in unstable countries keep a nest egg in dollars. I mean, how would you be feeling about your assests in an Iranian bank if you were a rich guy in Iran right now?

Yeah, but that's changing due to all the printing of dollars. Even China is buying loads of gold as it doesn't trust where the US dollar is headed. That's happening here right now. There's talk that some govts don't want the dollar as a reserve currency anymore. We may just have a dollar crisis ourselves. When countries reach crises, people hoard gold too. They did just before HongKong went back to the Chineseout of fear.

Amnorix

06-15-2009, 07:55 AM

Ahmenutjob gets elected, it's Bush's fault

Isn't the question whether Ahmenutjob was elected to begin with?

Yes, yes, I believe it is.

Amnorix

06-15-2009, 07:55 AM

I have no problems with them revolting. But for the Left to cry about alleged election fraud is nothing new. Whenever "their guy" loses it is always fraud and cheating.

So....you believe the Iranian elections were fairly held and impartially determined, and the result legitimate?

patteeu

06-15-2009, 08:01 AM

Yes to the sit-down if the alternative is an invasion. This is a country that in time can stand up on their own eventually. Ruining it by staging another Iraq style invasion will turn the people against the US and reverse the potential of a normal relationship. One big reason is that the people will see it as a US attempt to "FORCE" a change and create a society in ruins that will NEED to accept one sided deals with US companies. Plus if say there are offers of Nuke tech help for peaceful means and the regime still refuses, then Obama will have forced their hand to reveal Bomb aspirations.

:spock: Invasion? Nice strawman.

patteeu

06-15-2009, 08:02 AM

The biggest allegation of cheating had nothing to do with the recounts or hanging chads or anything like that. It had to do with the fact that the State of Florida hired a private company from Texas, a company with ties to the Bush family and the GOP, to scrub the rolls, and that company illegally scrubbed more than 8000 names from the voter rolls, more than 3/4 of whom were registered Democrats.

Simply not true.

Amnorix

06-15-2009, 08:11 AM

civilian
a nonmilitary citizen

From definitions on the web

So he wasn't really military but a civilian working in it, which means he was a citizen—in this case Israel. Something's fishy here.

Wow. Just wow.

Amnorix

06-15-2009, 08:16 AM

Here you go, Frankie. Obama helped Ahmadinejad get elected because he made it clear to the Iranian ruling elite that they could do as they please without any fear whatsoever of Obama. They didn't even bother to hide their election rigging because they want the world to know that they are thumbing their noses at the Great Satan and it's impotent leader. How's that?

As if Bush would have any hope of doing anything military in Iran right now if he was still Prez. And as if Iran wouldn't know it.

You think the world doesn't know we're already militarily strained without instituting a very unpopular draft that just isn't likely to get through Congress? Or that they don't understand that the Iraq situation has been a terrible drain on military and financial resources, and that the American public, like any country's public, gets sick of prolonged wars/occupations/police actions/whateveryouwanttocallthems?

patteeu

06-15-2009, 08:18 AM

As if Bush would have any hope of doing anything military in Iran right now if he was still Prez. And as if Iran wouldn't know it.

You think the world doesn't know we're already militarily strained without instituting a very unpopular draft that just isn't likely to get through Congress? Or that they don't understand that the Iraq situation has been a terrible drain on military and financial resources, and that the American public, like any country's public, gets sick of prolonged wars/occupations/police actions/whateveryouwanttocallthems?

Huh? I didn't say anything about the military.

Amnorix

06-15-2009, 08:20 AM

Huh? I didn't say anything about the military.

Iran has more or less proven to be impervious to other types of threats.

BigRedChief

06-15-2009, 08:23 AM

Iran has more or less proven to be impervious to other types of threats.
We can't do diddly squat about Iran militarily without unleashing a chitstorm against us all over the world. And why would we do that in the first place? Let the Iranians themselfs throw the mullahs out.

mlyonsd

06-15-2009, 08:27 AM

We can't do diddly squat about Iran militarily without unleashing a chitstorm against us all over the world. And why would we do that in the first place? Let the Iranians themselfs throw the mullahs out.

That would rock.

Hopefully before they attain a nuke.

stevieray

06-15-2009, 08:38 AM

Al Gore lost again?

too funny..when someone "you" like wins... it's all good, but when someone you want to win doesn't, it's a stolen election.

Frankie

06-15-2009, 08:49 AM

My bad. It felt wrong, but oh so right to my English tongue.

Not a problem dude.

petegz28

06-15-2009, 09:42 AM

So....you believe the Iranian elections were fairly held and impartially determined, and the result legitimate?

Nope. But I believe it ain't our problem.

petegz28

06-15-2009, 09:44 AM

Sadaam Hussein torutred, mutlilated and oppressed people and the Left wanted nothing to do with Iraq.

Now we are supposed to invade Iran over a rigged election????

LMAO

petegz28

06-15-2009, 09:44 AM

We can't do diddly squat about Iran militarily without unleashing a chitstorm against us all over the world. And why would we do that in the first place? Let the Iranians themselfs throw the mullahs out.

This

KILLER_CLOWN

06-15-2009, 09:46 AM

We can't do diddly squat about Iran militarily without unleashing a chitstorm against us all over the world. And why would we do that in the first place? Let the Iranians themselfs throw the mullahs out.

If only our foreign policy had this viewpoint, we would be much better off.

KILLER_CLOWN

06-15-2009, 09:47 AM

Iran protest cancelled as leaked election results show Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came third
Iran's reformist presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi has called off a major rally to protest last Friday's election results, amid claims police had been cleared to open fire on protesters.

By Colin Freeman
Published: 11:21AM BST 15 Jun 2009

Supporters had been due to turn out en masse in Tehran on Monday afternoon, despite government warnings to stay off the streets.

But this morning, a statement on Mr Mousavi's campaign website announced that the demonstration had been postponed – although it said Mr Mousavi would go to the site to ensure any supporters who showed up remained calm.

Video at link will not imbed properly
Iran's Interior Ministry said Mr Mousavi would be responsible for any consequences if he went ahead with the protest.

Mr Mousavi's cancellation of the protest came as sporadic disturbances continued around the Iranian capital, and reports circulated of leaked interior ministry statistics showing him as the clear victor in last Friday's polls.

The statistics, circulated on Iranian blogs and websites, claimed Mr Mousavi had won 19.1 million votes while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won only 5.7 million.

The two other candidates, reformist Mehdi Karoubi and hardliner Mohsen Rezai, won 13.4 million and 3.7 million respectively. The authenticity of the leaked figures could not be confirmed.

Mr Mousavi has accused Iran's government of "fraud" after Mr Ahmadinejad was declared on Saturday to have 62.6 per cent of the vote, making him the landslide winner. The capital has been rocked by disturbances for the last three days.

It was not clear whether Mr Mousavi's supporters would heed his call to stay indoors. About 200 relatives of people arrested during protests over the weekend staged a brief protest outside Tehran's main revolutionary court.

"You can beat us as much as you can, but take us to our children," shouted one woman, as a policeman was seen beating a man in a bid to disperse the crowd. Around 170 people are believed to have been detained so far, and are thought to have been taken to Tehran's Evin prison.

In an effort to quell the rising tensions, the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ordered an investigation into claims of fraud in Friday's disputed vote, according to Iranian state television.

Meanwhile, David Miliband, the British Foreign Secretary, raised concern over the implications of the disputed elections for Iran's engagement with the West and for efforts to curb its controversial nuclear programme.

"Our serious concern is about the implications of recent events for the engagement the international community seeks with the government of Iran," Miliband told reporters as he arrived for a meeting with European Union counterparts in Luxembourg today.

"The implications are not yet clear."

Mr Mousavi had previously threatened to hold a sit-in protest at the mausoleum of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founder of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, if the authorities banned his followers from holding their rally. It is thought the government would be reluctant to forcibly break a demonstration in what is considered a holy place.

A reformist activist close to Mr Mousavi, Shahab Tabatabaei, said his supporters were determined to hold rally despite the interior ministry's rejection.

Overnight, squads of police and their allies in Iran's basiji gangs, a plain clothes militia made up of civilian hardliners, stormed the campus at the city's biggest university, ransacking dormitories and arresting dozens of students.

So much for people saying that Mousavi didn't win and the election wasn't rigged.

Fucking idiots

petegz28

06-15-2009, 09:51 AM

So much for people saying that Mousavi didn't win and the election wasn't rigged.

****ing idiots

WTF?

dirk digler

06-15-2009, 09:55 AM

WTF?

What do you mean WTF?

petegz28

06-15-2009, 09:58 AM

What do you mean WTF?

What do you mean, what do I mean, WTF?

Are you calling people who say the election was rigged an idiot?

Ultra Peanut

06-15-2009, 09:59 AM

A policeman tells AFP that between 1.5 million and two million pro-Mousavi protesters have gathered in Tehran as part of a massive rally.<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ey9Kgf-cB40&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ey9Kgf-cB40&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Jaw dropping.

wild1

06-15-2009, 09:59 AM

Well, those numbers were circulated on blogs, you can't get anything more unassailable than that. If you don't believe these blogs you're a ***ing idiot.

dirk digler

06-15-2009, 10:01 AM

What do you mean, what do I mean, WTF?

Are you calling people who say the election was rigged an idiot?

No the opposite. I am calling people who said the election wasn't rigged idiots.

BigRedChief

06-15-2009, 10:04 AM

No the opposite. I am calling people who said the election wasn't rigged idiots.
Who is saying that it was a fair election?

dirk digler

06-15-2009, 10:04 AM

Well, those numbers were circulated on blogs, you can't get anything more unassailable than that. If you don't believe these blogs you're a ***ing idiot.

I am trying to be nice but you are smarter than this wild.

leaked interior ministry statistics

dirk digler

06-15-2009, 10:05 AM

Who is saying that it was a fair election?

I am not going to name any names but go back and read through both threads and there is a few posters that claim it wasn't rigged.

wild1

06-15-2009, 10:08 AM

No the opposite. I am calling people who said the election wasn't rigged an idiot.

You know who the idiots are? The people who thought that a smile and a speech was going to change anything. I know the fawning press tried to advance that point, and you (especially) swallowed the bait, but use your head.

Iran is not democratic. It is run by handful of religious radicals and their frontman. It's been this way for 30 years. Thank Jimmy Carter the first for that. Jimmy Carter the second isn't going to change anything. Until he can be compelled to take any action on any international threat or stand up to anyone, that's not going to change. This government is not going anywhere.

The people who are idiots are the ones who bought into this tripe about Dear Leader could fix all the world's problems by being a good looking guy and being good at reading a speech off a prompter.

dirk digler

06-15-2009, 10:25 AM

You know who the idiots are? The people who thought that a smile and a speech was going to change anything. I know the fawning press tried to advance that point, and you (especially) swallowed the bait, but use your head.

Iran is not democratic. It is run by handful of religious radicals and their frontman. It's been this way for 30 years. Thank Jimmy Carter the first for that. Jimmy Carter the second isn't going to change anything. Until he can be compelled to take any action on any international threat or stand up to anyone, that's not going to change. This government is not going anywhere.

The people who are idiots are the ones who bought into this tripe about Dear Leader could fix all the world's problems by being a good looking guy and being good at reading a speech off a prompter.

I never made any claim that Obama's speech would instantly change anything all I said was it could be the tipping point to help Mousavi win. 30% unemployment and a shitty economy even though they have one of the largest oil reserves in the world are the top 2 reasons.

You know what I find interesting though is take for example Reagan. There is alot of people on here and on the right that love and adore Reagan. But alot of people credit his Berlin Wall speech as the main reason why the Berlin Wall came down. You mean a speech can actually have that big of an effect on how governments do things especially one that we were in war with?

I know alot of you don't like Obama but you have to realize that he inspires alot of people just like Reagan inspired alot of people with his words and that what both men say do have an effect on people and government.

wild1

06-15-2009, 10:46 AM

You know what I find interesting though is take for example Reagan. There is alot of people on here and on the right that love and adore Reagan. But alot of people credit his Berlin Wall speech as the main reason why the Berlin Wall came down. You mean a speech can actually have that big of an effect on how governments do things especially one that we were in war with?

I know alot of you don't like Obama but you have to realize that he inspires alot of people just like Reagan inspired alot of people with his words and that what both men say do have an effect on people and government.

Funny. Our understanding of history today is so depleted.

Reagan didn't just talk about doing things. He did things. He gave a historic speech where he challenged Gorbachev sure, but it was part of a campaign over the entire decade of opposition. He'd spent his whole presidency beating back communism, opposing them at every turn. He kept developing SDI and wouldn't bend even though Grobachev offered more and more cuts in missiles, for example.

Brezhnev said in a book that if you ask Russians 99% of them will say that the US won the cold war because Reagan wouldn't give in on weapons and on SDI. The Russians knew they had to take us seriously because Reagan would back up his words.

Iran knows they don't have to take us seriously because there's no will behind the words that had you so sure the dictatorship would just graciously step aside.

Reagan didn't just fill the air with empty rhetoric. He recognized the threat that it represented and he made it the mission of his administration to opposed it, fight it, defeat it.

His editorializing about the dangers of communism happened 20 or 30 years before he took office. Reagan was a man of action and not one of talk.

dirk digler

06-15-2009, 11:00 AM

Funny. Our understanding of history today is so depleted.

Reagan didn't just talk about doing things. He did things. He gave a historic speech where he challenged Gorbachev sure, but it was part of a campaign over the entire decade of opposition. He'd spent his whole presidency beating back communism, opposing them at every turn. He kept developing SDI and wouldn't bend even though Grobachev offered more and more cuts in missiles, for example.

Brezhnev said in a book that if you ask Russians 99% of them will say that the US won the cold war because Reagan wouldn't give in on weapons and on SDI. The Russians knew they had to take us seriously because Reagan would back up his words.

Iran knows they don't have to take us seriously because there's no will behind the words that had you so sure the dictatorship would just graciously step aside.

Reagan didn't just fill the air with empty rhetoric. He recognized the threat that it represented and he made it the mission of his administration to opposed it, fight it, defeat it.

His editorializing about the dangers of communism happened 20 or 30 years before he took office. Reagan was a man of action and not one of talk.

Reagan was a good POTUS but he had his faults as well. Compare what would happen today if Obama would retreat from Afghanistan after a suicide bomb went off at a military base like Reagen did in Lebanon. He let the terrorists win. If Obama did that today alot of people would roundly criticize him as they should.

But as far as what you posted the one big difference I see is that Obama is 6 months into Presidencey while Reagan gave that infamous speech in 1987, which would have been his 7th year in office. So before we start saying Obama is not a man of action let's give it a bit. If we are saying this in a year from now I will agree with you.

gblowfish

06-15-2009, 11:02 AM

Have they counted the votes from Florida yet???

wild1

06-15-2009, 11:04 AM

So before we start saying Obama is not a man of action let's give it a bit. If we are saying this in a year from now I will agree with you.

I doubt it.

Nightwish

06-15-2009, 11:36 AM

Did Nightwish say something?
Wow, you really need to grow a thicker skin. If you can't take a little criticism, you're really in the wrong forum!

dirk digler

06-15-2009, 11:47 AM

I doubt it.

Like you have shown any ounce of objectivity. You still think the Iran election wasn't rigged

Amnorix

06-15-2009, 12:02 PM

Funny. Our understanding of history today is so depleted.

But our ability to spin it isn't.

Reagan didn't just talk about doing things. He did things. He gave a historic speech where he challenged Gorbachev sure, but it was part of a campaign over the entire decade of opposition. He'd spent his whole presidency beating back communism, opposing them at every turn. He kept developing SDI and wouldn't bend even though Grobachev offered more and more cuts in missiles, for example.

Brezhnev said in a book that if you ask Russians 99% of them will say that the US won the cold war because Reagan wouldn't give in on weapons and on SDI. The Russians knew they had to take us seriously because Reagan would back up his words.

errr....the only BRezhnev I'm familar with is Leonid Brezhnev, the former leader of the USSR who croaked in 1982. I doubt he would have beenw riting about why the US won the cold war at that time.

Can you clarify who you meant?

Also, Gorbachev and the CIA each independently determined that the US military buildup under Reagan (it was alot more than SDI which, in case you haven't noticed, we have still been unable to develop 30 years after Reagan was elected despite tremendous advances in technology) was not the reason the USSR fell.

Iran knows they don't have to take us seriously because there's no will behind the words that had you so sure the dictatorship would just graciously step aside.

Reagan didn't just fill the air with empty rhetoric. He recognized the threat that it represented and he made it the mission of his administration to opposed it, fight it, defeat it.

His editorializing about the dangers of communism happened 20 or 30 years before he took office. Reagan was a man of action and not one of talk.

Action like illegally selling weapons to the Iranians?

Look, he wasn't a terrible President, but don't build him to being more than what he was. Invading Grenada was exciting and all, but the USSR was doomed regardless of whether Reagan continued and expanded on the late Carter era military buildup.

orange

06-15-2009, 12:11 PM

Invading Grenada was exciting and all, but the USSR was doomed regardless of whether Reagan continued and expanded on the late Carter era military buildup.

The most substantial thing Reagan did to help the USSR fall was support the resistance in Afghanistan - and that came with a heavy price.

orange

06-15-2009, 01:01 PM

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0e8t8M1612akT/610x.jpg

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/04OAbXQa7rfAn/610x.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/86379/original.jpg

petegz28

06-15-2009, 01:14 PM

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0e8t8M1612akT/610x.jpg

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/04OAbXQa7rfAn/610x.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/86379/original.jpg

Are these pics from L.A. after the Lakers victory?

orange

06-15-2009, 01:17 PM

No, they're from when the pro-Ahmadinejad militia opened fire on peaceful demonstrators.

But I think you knew that.

Still trying to rationalize away your earlier stance that mad Ahmad is the legitimate choice of a majority of Iranians?